Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL  [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Unemployment

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales by what amount unemployment has risen in Wales since 3 May 1979.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): About 18,000, seasonally adjusted, or 34,000 unadjusted.

Mr. Jones: That is perhaps the most ominous statement that the right hon. Gentleman has so far made to Parliament. Does he know that 7,000 luckless steel workers and textile workers are now chasing fewer than 400 jobs in my constituency? Will he, therefore, take this opportunity to repudiate the now infamous Swansea speech of the Prime Minister in which the policy was promulgated that to solve our unemployment difficulties migration might be used as an instrument of policy? That truly enraged many people in Wales. Will the right hon. Gentleman give answers that give hope to our young people? Will he understand that an exodus for jobs undermines the dignity of labour? The Government must do better than this.

Mr. Edwards: My right hon. Friend, speaking at Swansea, never suggested that

migration was the answer to the problems. I say here and now that it is not my policy nor the policy of the Government that the problems we face in Wales should be solved by large-scale migration out of Wales.

Mr. Anderson: What did she mean, then?

Mr. Edwards: I have in front of me the transcript of my right hon. Friend's words. I was sitting next to her when she spoke. She spoke about people's reluctance to move even comparatively small distances. She talked at length about the measures being taken by the Government to create new jobs in Wales, the money that we are spending on sites, the generous redundancy payments and the responsibilities of Government to encourage employment to come to Wales. I repudiate entirely the implications of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for shorter questions which will lead to shorter answers to questions.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does not the security of employment of Wales in the future depend on people leaving jobs in obsolescent industries and moving into good jobs in new industries? Does my right hon. Friend consider that the resources available to the Welsh Development Agency to help provide new jobs are adequate to meet the present situation?

Mr. Edwards: The WDA is currently building, or starting to build, nearly 3½ million sq ft of factory space in this financial year. To enable it to provide even more resources, it is today announcing that it has secured an arrangement with Norwich Union Insurance for the injection of a further 5½ million in addition to the £3 million promised by the National Coal Board pension fund. That, together with the sale of other factories, will produce an additional £10 million of resources over the next two years.

Mr. Anderson: Last July the Secretary of State and his friends downgraded Swansea for regional development purposes. Since that time, the unemployment rate has risen to 10·1 per cent. and is deteriorating so it will certainly rise to 12 per cent. by next May. Does not this


situation justify reconsideration of Swansea's regional development status?

Mr. Edwards: We made it clear when the last upgradings were announced that we would keep the position of Swansea under review. It has to be compared with similar unemployment problems elsewhere. As we are operating a regional policy that is based on consistency of treatment between different parts of the United Kingdom, Swansea must expect its problems to be examined in relation to similar problems in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Geraint Howells: In view of the serious unemployment in mid-Wales, to which areas of Wales does the Secretary of State advise school leavers to go to look for work?

Mr. Edwards: I am glad to say that there are opportunities, even in these difficult times. When I was asked a question earlier this year about the number of advance factories in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, five were unoccupied. I am glad to say that four of them were filled this year and we are building another six.

Mr. Hooson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling unemployment statistics owe a great deal to the previous Government's lack of foresight in tackling serious industrial problems that could have been handled more easily?

Mr. Edwards: Serious though the increase in unemployment is, it has risen less sharply since we came into government than in the first 12 months of the Labour Government's period in power. The then Prime Minister said simply and unequivocally:
It is caused by paying ourselves more than the value of what we produce.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State feel no shame whatsoever that he has pushed unemployment in Wales to the highest level since the 1930s, knowing that it is bound to go still higher? Does he realise that, according to an answer from his Department on Friday, 60,202 redundancies have been declared in Wales, the equivalent of 200 each working day since the Government came to office? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the forecast by the Cambridge economic policy group that

by 1983 unemployment in Wales will rise to 15 per cent., or 167,000? Is he truly proud of his role at the last election as the political Judas goat who led the people of Wales into this misery?

Mr. Edwards: The first priority, if we are to avoid even higher unemployment, is to defeat the inflation which to a considerable extent was unleashed by the previous Government's spending policies. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if wage rises exceeded the 5 per cent. level asked by the previous Government, massively rising unemployment would be caused. The Opposition have helped to encourage such wage increases and we are now suffering the unemployment.

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

Mr Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools in Wales at the most recent count; and how this compares with the ratio in the two previous years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): The ratio was 21·9 to 1 in January 1980 compared with 22 to 1 a year earlier and 22·6 to 1 in 1978.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show a satisfactory improving trend? Do they not belie the Opposition's propaganda of gloom and despondency about education in Wales?

Mr. Michael Roberts: Yes, indeed. Pupil-teacher ratios are at their best ever level. In 1979 the pupil-teacher ratio in English primary schools was 23·1 to 1 and in Wales 22 to 1.

Steel Industry

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek a meeting with the new chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss the impact of steel closures on employment in Wales.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any recent discussions with the British Steel Corporation concerning the steel industry in South Wales; and what proposals he has for the employment of redundant steel workers.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I met the chairman most recently on 7 July. There will be further meetings as necessary. The remedial measures that I have announced will result in the provision of 2¼ million sq ft of factory space with the potential for between 7,000 and 9,000 jobs and 600 acres prepared for industrial development, all in steel closure areas in Wales. The Shotton travel-to-work area has been upgraded and decisions have been taken to upgrade the Port Talbot and Newport travel-to-work areas and the Cwmbran employment exchange areas.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the report in today's Financial Times which suggests that the chairman of the British Steel Corporation might recommend the closure of Port Talbot and/or Llanwern because of the steel crisis? Will he give an assurance that at this point he has no knowledge whatever of any such proposal? May we have an assurance that if such a proposal were forthcoming without prior discussion with him he would resign his post?

Mr. Edwards: I can give the assurance that I am not aware of any such proposal. Indeed, the chairman of the BSC, when he came to see me, made it absolutely clear that he had not yet taken decisions and that he wished to assess the situation fully before he took such decisions. He said that such decisions were still some little time away.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that many influential reports state that the steel industry is in a catastrophic position? Does he accept that Wales has relied heavily on the industry in the past? What advice has he to offer redundant steel workers? Where are the Eldorados with new jobs and new opportunities? Does he agree that the Prime Minister in Swansea was talking sheer bunkum?

Mr. Edwards: I agree that the situation in the British Steel Corporation is extremely serious. That is why we are making special provision in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and other affected constituencies. The Welsh Development Agency is announcing a further 184,000 sq ft of factory building in Newport under an agreement with Wimpey. That is in addition to the factory

space already announced in that constituency. The number of factory allocations this year and the number of visits are at high levels. That shows that continuing investment and new job opportunities are still arising in Wales.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is not the catastrophic plight of the British steel industry, particularly in Wales, due in large measure to the refusal by the previous Government in 1975 to permit the British Steel Corporation to slim itself down into a competitive position?

Mr. Edwards: Undoubtedly the British Steel Corporation is not in a competitive position. I fear that one of the reasons is that decisions to match the record of its competitors overseas were put off.

Mr. Hudson Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government have a bland complacency about the level of unemployment in Wales? Is he not aware that at this moment negotiations are taking place and that the British Steel Corporation is intent on the further purchase of foreign coal to the detriment of employment in Wales and the coalfields in South Wales? Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel some sense of shame that he bears the title of Secretary of State for Wales while attached to a Government who seem hell bent on working against the interests of Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is in the interests of the British Steel Corporation, if it is to be competitive, to buy uncompetitive coal.

Mr. Coleman: May I ask the Secretary of State a question arising out of that asked by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley)? Will he say categorically that, if he is not consulted by the British Steel Corporation about future steel industry closures in Wales, he will resign his office?

Mr. Edwards: All that I can say is that the new chairman of the British Steel Corporation, like his predecessor, is punctilious about keeping me informed. When the chairman came to see me recently he told me that it would take him quite a long time to make his assessment of the British Steel Corporation's prospects and that he had not yet taken decisions.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State accept that if, after allowing the closure of Shotton, he allows one or both of the great modern steelworks at Llanwern and Margam to close, it will be a blow as bitter and with as lasting a political impact as the decision by Churchill to send troops against the miners? The right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be the voice of Wales in the Cabinet. We have heard about amicable discussions. Has he taken any action to prevent the closure of either of those steelworks? Most important, if the chairman eventually recommends that one or both should close, does he intend to take action against such a decision?

Mr. Edwards: I shall want to see whether the chairman of the British Steel Corporation puts up proposals for a strong and viable future industry that can provide jobs. The closures are being contemplated today, at least in part, because the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues put off the necessary decisions about closures.

Hospital Building

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many new hospitals are under construction in Wales; and whether he is satisfied with the rate at which they are being completed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Major new hospital development is under way at Bangor, Newport and Bridgend. Substantial improvements and developments are being carried out at Bronllys in Powys, Griffithstown in Gwent and Velindre in Cardiff. Work on the planned new hospitals at Morriston and Wrexham is expected to start this financial year. The rate of progress on all these schemes has been generally satisfactory. Among smaller schemes in the pipeline, planning is in progress to replace the Adelina Patti hospital at Ystradgynlais in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Hooson: While progress on all these hospital schemes is most pleasing, I hope that my hon. Friend will pay particular attention to the great need in rural Wales for small local community hospitals which serve a large proportion of total needs and which are much appreciated.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I can give my hon. Friend assurances on that point. This is, primarily, a matter for the area health authorities. My hon. Friend will know that in his own constituency it is planned to replace the Adelina Patti hospital with a new community hospital at Ystradgynlais.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Will the Minister state what hope, and promises, he has for the 33 per cent. of the electorate of the Carmarthen constituency who regard Llanelli as their main centre for hospital treatment? There was a complete absence in his answer of any reference to Llanelli. When will Llanelli and that area have a district general hospital up to the standard of district general hospitals in the rest of Dyfed?

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that we recently approved the development of a new hospital on a green field site at Bryngwynmawr with a first phase costing between £16 million and £17 million. Present indications are that the earliest possible start on site will be towards the end of 1983.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: What proposals does the Minister have about the revenue consequences for the coming financial year for area health authorities in Wales of these new hospital expansion plans? Can he assure us that the result of building new hospitals will not be a reduction in the health care services outside the new district general hospitals?

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Welsh Office takes care of the revenue consequences of opening a new hospital and gives the necessary financial support.

Unemployment

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for unemployment in Wales; and how many unemployed are under 25 years of age.

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales, what is the latest level of youth unemployment in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Total unemployment was 116, 839 on 10 July 1980. No age analysis is yet available, but the


number of school leavers included in the total was just over 19,000.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that young people in Wales have very few job opportunities at present? Will the Secretary of State ask the Prime Minister to withdraw her statement in Swansea that if people were not willing to move as their fathers did the economy could not thrive? It was offensive to the people of South Wales—when we remember that their uncles and relatives had to emigrate to England in the past in order to get jobs—to tell them that, once again, they must leave Wales to find jobs. Why do not the Government bring the jobs back to Wales?

Mr. Edwards: We are increasing resources to deal with the problems of young school leavers. In the speech referred to by the hon. Member, my right hon. Friend spoke of
reallocating resources where needed to mitigate the hardship of the unemployed.
She did not talk about large-scale migration. Indeed, she said that she recognised that
it is the Government's job to try to mitigate the effects of change, to try to give people a chance and opportunity to take new jobs; some to move to them, some jobs to move to the people—all of them willing and able to adapt to the new technologies, the new products without which there can be no success for Wales or for Britain.
Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot disagree with those wholly sensible sentiments.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been told by British Rail that at the moment there are 10,000 unfilled job vacancies with the railways?

Mr. Evans: In Wales?

Mr. Adley: Yes, including a considerable number in Wales. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, make sure that this information, assuming that we all consider British Rail to be a good employer, is available to those who are looking for work in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: Of course I shall ensure that the information is made available. Many job opportunities are available at any one time. Many people are moving into new jobs and a considerable proportion of school leavers who have

joined the roll immediately on leaving school will get jobs in the coming months. Those who do not will be covered by the guarantee given by the Manpower Services Commission to provide them with a place under the youth opportunities programme.

Mr. Coleman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that young people in Wales do not need any help from the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley)? We want jobs in Wales. Will the Secretary of State repudiate any thoughts or ideas of the Prime Minister about the migration of our people from Wales because this is an obscenity being perpetrated upon the young people of Wales? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he feels about being a record breaker among Secretaries for Wales in relation to the present level of unemployment in Wales? Is he not ashamed of that?

Mr. Edwards: I am a record breaker in the amount of resources I am devoting to the task of creating new factories and new factory spaces in Wales. It must be self-evident, even to the hon. Gentleman, that if we create new factory locations people must be prepared to move, perhaps short distances, to work in them.

Mr. Rowlands: Now he has said it.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not a fact that the way to safeguard jobs is to provide new jobs with a future and not to go on supporting jobs in industries which are, inevitably, obsolescent?

Mr. Edwards: There is no doubt that if we are to emerge from these problems, which affect not only Wales but the whole of the United Kingdom, we must be prepared to adapt to change and fill the jobs in the new growing industries. That must mean flexibility and a new approach to these problems. The Government have shown that they recognise that they have a major part to play in assisting the process of change.

Mr. Abse: When representatives of the Welsh Office appeared before the Select Committee in March, they declared that the Government's immediate and long-term objective was to stem the flow of outward migration. When did that policy change? Since we assume, as we must, that the Secretary of State was not


attempting to deceive the Select Committee when he appeared before it and did not tell it of this major change of policy, was he told of the Prime Minister's speech? Or was the Secretary of State being treated with the contempt that is implied in other matters? Is he regarded as a dogsbody in that the Prime Minister does not even tell him when she is about to insult Wales as she did in her speech advocating migration?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is always very eloquent. It is a pity that before he attacks someone's speech he does not read what was said. If he did that his words might carry more conviction. More people came to live in Wales last year than left Wales.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State realise that it is absolutely no good trying to wriggle and to withdraw the statements that we all know were made by the Prime Minister? Those statements were reiterated last week by the Secretary of State for Employment. Was the right hon. Gentleman consulted before the statement by the Secretary of State for Employment or the Prime Minister? If not, that fact confirms that the right hon. Gentleman is simply a makeweight in Cabinet. If the right hon. Gentleman was informed, and if the Prime Minister's speech is a confirmation of advice that he gave, he has absolutely no right to represent the people of Wales in Cabinet. The only thing he can do, with any honour, is to pack his bags and go.

Mr. Edwards: If, as I gather, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to argue that, in the face of major industrial change, there should not be some mobility, that says very little for the ability of our country to adapt to the changes that are taking place in the world. If we follow the right hon. Gentleman's advice we will not be able to compete in the world and we shall have even higher unemployment. Those are the policies he advocates.

Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory reply I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Development Board for Rural Wales

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has

any plans to give extra financial aid to the Development Board for Rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have no present plans to do so.

Mr. Howells: I am very disappointed with that reply. Will the Secretary of State now consider helping the self-employed, the small businesses and agriculture in mid-Wales by persuading the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lower the minimum lending rate forthwith in order to ensure that those industries survive?

Mr. Edwards: The prime objective of the reductions that are taking place in public expenditure and public borrowing is to bring interest rates down. They have started to come down and I have no doubt that that process will continue in the coming months.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Does my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Development Board for Rural Wales on the magnificent job that it is doing? Does he join me in congratulating the DBRW on making sure that Newtown and Welshpool have one of the lowest unemployment figures in Wales? It is well below the national average. Does my right hon. Friend further acknowledge that Powys has increased its population by 70 per cent. and that the movement has been from England into Wales in the last few years? Does he share my hope that that course will continue?

Mr. Edwards: I congratulate the DBRW, as I have done on previous occasions, on the work that it is doing. At present, it is constructing more than 100,000 sq ft of advance factory space throughout its area, and it is continuing to encourage the arrival of new employment in the area.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: When does the Secretary of State intend to restore the £3 million cut in the board's budget which he made in the current financial year?

Mr. Edwards: I made no cut in the budget. I continued the expenditure broadly in line with what had been provided for in the previous Government's PESC plans. Characteristically, the previous Government did not provide the funds in their PESC plans which they


had announced for the future. In fact, in the previous year, they made some supplementary provision when they had underspent in other programmes.

Dr. Roger Thomas: What proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have in respect of those areas of rural Wales which are not fortunate enough to be included in the DBRW's location?

Mr. Edwards: The Welsh Development Agency carries on its operations throughout Wales, and it covers those parts that are not covered by the DBRW. One of the consequences of the announcement that I made earlier about the additional private sector finance which is to be injected into the WDA—I hope that this will merely be a first step in this direction—will be to enable additional resources to be allocated to parts of Wales outside the steel closure areas.

Employment (Ogmore)

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that employment is available for the redundant steelworkers and others within the Ogmore constituency; and by what date this employment will be available.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Welsh Development Agency is building 250,000 sq ft of factory space in the Ogmore constituency over the next two years, with a potential of between 750 and 1,000 jobs. This is in addition to the estimated 2,400 manufacturing jobs in the pipeline for the Port Talbot travel-to-work area over the next three to four years. It is not possible to give an estimate for the constituency itself, but it does form a substantial part of the travel-to-work area.

Mr. Powell: It is no wonder that the Secretary of State calls himself a record breaker, because he has broken records in Ogmore. Ogmore had a growth area in Bridgend. The right hon. Gentleman has now committed industrial rape in the area. Last Friday, I received the unemployment figures from the Bridgend job centre. They total 4,000, and 500 students are registered as unemployed, a 1 per cent. increase since June. What will the right hon. Gentleman do about this, and how can those people find jobs within Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I know that Bridgend is one of the most attractive locations in South Wales and that new jobs are being created there. I visited Ford of Bridgend last week and saw its successful programme. With the co-operation of the labour force it is close to expanding. I could refer to a number of other successes if I had the time.

British Steel Corporation (Report)

Dr. Ifor Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Gower,Official Report,

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The meeting covered the short-term problems for tin-plate as a result of the present fall in demand.

Dr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tinplate section of the British Steel Corporation has consistently operated at a profit over the years? Is he further aware that the BSC has recently announced that the industry, which is located in my constituency, will operate on a shorter working week because of lack of supplies of continuous casting quality steel, a full supply of which it has been unable to get from the BSC? As a result, that quality steel is now imported. As Secretary of State, will he institute an inquiry in the light of the seriousness of this situation?

Mr. Edwards: My understanding—certainly from the information that has been given to me by the BSC—is that the present short-time working and temporary arrangements are being made not because of the shortage of suitable steel, although some is being imported, but because of the serious collapse of the market. The BSC is attempting to mitigate this situation by temporary short-time working during the summer months in the hope that the market will improve in the autumn.

Dr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have it in writing that the statement which I made is correct?
I shall be glad to convey that to the right hon. Gentleman after Question Time.

Mr. Edwards: It is quite true that the BSC has chosen to import some steel, because in some of the new techniques for making cans it is necessary to have con-cast steel, which has not been immediately available from the BSC. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the general reason for the slowdown in the tinplate operation at present arises from the condition of the market rather than from the inadequacy of supplies.

Short-Time Working

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the number of firms and employees at present on short-time working in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: It is estimated that at 30 June 1980, just over 19,000 workers were being supported under the temporary short-time working compensation scheme.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that might not include large numbers of work people who are expected to take additional unpaid holidays because of the absence of orders? Will not the right hon. Gentleman go down in the record book not only as the Secretary of State who has served in office during the highest level of unemployment since the 1930s, but also as the Secretary of State who was responsible for the greatest number of people on a three-day working week since 1973, when we last had a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Edwards: Clearly, if firms have not applied for the temporary short-time working compensation scheme but are using other methods at present, those figures will not be included. What Wales is now suffering from are the consequences of a worldwide recession and the necessity to move away from the high inflation rates that were unleashed by the policies of previous Governments, including the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency 1,300 textile workers are going on short time, as are 3,000 steel workers, because

it appears that the Government refuse to peg the strong pound, thus undermining the export trade of those industries? Can he give any news of a major job project for a black spot such as my own in order to create new jobs? Will he also give the undertaking that he does not expect any young people or families in my constituency to leave their homes in order to find work elsewhere?

Mr. Edwards: I have made it quite clear that we do not advocate general large-scale migration as a solution to the problem, although there will have to be mobility of labour in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as elsewhere. I do not think that his other points arise from a question about the temporary short-time working compensation scheme.

Mr. Wigley: When this scheme comes to an end, the many thousands on short-time working are likely to be on the dole, along with 117,000 others. In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the estimate given by the Welsh Office to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs of a peak unemployment rate of 125,000? What is his latest estimate of the likely unemployment rate in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I have never made unemployment forecasts, and I do not propose to do so now.

Mr. Alan Williams: The right hon. Gentleman is wise to take that position. However, does he realise the importance of the figures that he has just given? In addition to the post-war record of 116,800 fully unemployed, there are now 19,000 partially unemployed. Is not it a fact that unless urgent action is taken on interest rates and sterling, most of those 19,000 people will finish up in the hopelessness of a Welsh dole queue? When about 15,000 unregistered unemployed or people on short-time working are added, do not the figures show that more than 150,000 Welsh workers are already feeling the poisonous bite of the Government's economic policies, with the coal and steel redundancies still to be added?

Mr. Edwards: We know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have always been loth to follow consistent policies for the good of our economy. It is clear that if we are to get interest rates down and produce the economic


conditions for new investment and the creation of new jobs, we must persist with the Government's strategy. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that reducing interest rates is one of the highest priorities; I therefore hope that he will support the policies that will make that possible.

A55 (Conwy River Crossing)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the route of the Conwy river crossing section of the dual carriage A55 road.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have decided that the new A55 trunk road should cross the Conwy estuary in a tunnel. I have reached this decision following the most careful consideration of a report by consulting engineers, a personal inspection of the area and in the light of the numerous representations that I have received in favour of a tunnel. I am placing copies of the consultants' report in the Library of the House. The route that I am adopting as my preferred route is that described in the report as the "green tunnel route".

Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a cheer in North Wales for the courage and decisiveness that he has displayed on this occasion? Is he further aware that by his decision he has made it possible for industry and tourism to contemplate North Wales with both confidence and hope?

Mr. Edwards: It will be a major scheme to improve the infrastructure of North-West Wales. It involves the construction of a submerged tube tunnel. It will be the first time in Britain that a tunnel of that sort and on that scale has been attempted. The project will also ensure the preservation of Conwy castle and the town halls, which have a unique place in the architectural heritage of Europe.

Unemployment

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales, in the light of the latest unemployment figures, to where he would advise Welsh workers to move to find jobs.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I hope, to other jobs in Wales where the Government

are making a major effort to provide new job opportunities.

Mr. Anderson: The Secretary of State must be aware that housing is a major obstacle to mobility. He must be further aware of the extreme sensitivity in Wales about that issue. As the Welsh people turn to him and to his Department for help with jobs, will he seek to restrain the heartless latter-day Marie Antoinette who is trying to close down Wales?

Mr. Edwards: The greatest single contribution that we can make to housing in relation to mobility is the sale of council houses. The legislation to make that possible will be finalised within days.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As a Welshman driven out of Wales, may I ask the Secretary of State to put in the Official Report a detailed list of jobs that are vacant in Finchley, Lowestoft and other ministerial constituencies where Welsh coal miners and tin workers can find jobs? Is he aware that I have been looking for them in West Ham but that I cannot find any?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that job opportunities are available in all parts of the country, including the South-East. People are taking jobs every day of the week. There is a large turnover within employment and the unemployment figures that are quoted, with a large number of people going into new jobs.

Mr. Hudson Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unemployment figures for Wales; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce this level.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Total unemployment was 116,839 on 10 July 1980. That figure will begin to come down when inflation is reduced and industrial competitiveness improves.

Mr. Hudson Davies: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that one of the most effective actions that he could take to reduce the level of unemployment in Wales and the danger of further unemployment would be to lean upon the British Steel Corporation to change its purchasing policies on the importation of foreign coal? Will he take this opportunity to make up for the fact that he, no doubt inadvertently, failed to answer


an earlier question, and now say whether he is aware of BSC negotiations for the formulation of new contracts to purchase more imported coal from America? Will he please give a straight answer?

Mr. Edwards: Negotiations are taking place between the BSC and the National Coal Board on those issues. Whatever solution is found between those two nationalised industries, it clearly cannot be in the interests of saving jobs in the steel industry if the BSC has to buy coal at uncompetitive prices. The greatest single destroyer of jobs is the fact that firms and industries are uncompetitive.

Mr. Abse: As the Prime Minister evidently takes the view that to reduce unemployment in Wales people should migrate, may I again ask the Secretary of State a straight question, to which I ask him to give a straight reply? Was he told about the change of policy advocating migration? When he appeared before the Select Committee, did he know that there was a change of policy? Was he told about the Prime Minister's declaration of policy?

Mr. Edwards: There has been no change of policy. Because there is no policy of migration, the other questions simply do not arise.

Outward Migration

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the outward migration from Wales in the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: It is estimated that in the period July 1978 to June 1979 53,200 people left Wales. In the same period there was an inflow of 58,700. There was thus a net increase of 5,500.

Mr. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State give an age breakdown of the migration flows? How many skilled workers who left Wales, along with their families, are included in that 53,000? How many more workers does the Prime Minister expect to leave Wales following the advice that she gave at Swansea?

Mr. Edwards: Information on the age of migrants is available only from the 1971 census. In 1970–71 there was a net flow of 770 persons over working age, 510 persons of working age and 170

persons under working age. I am afraid that more recent figures are not available.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Secretary of State realise that the young people of Wales will ignore completely what the Prime Minister said about leaving Wales? Is he aware that they will take less notice of her than the Olympic athletes did who went to Moscow to win gold medals?

Mr. Edwards: In her speech the Prime Minister did not urge that people should leave Wales. She recognised that it was the job of Government to mitigate the effects of change. She said that it would be unforgivable if we neglected a single, practical and sensible method to reduce unemployment.

Mr. Heffer: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are 107,000 unemployed on Merseyside, that in the past workers from Merseyside went to North Wales to find employment, and that now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) said, Shotton is a black spot? Where will the workers go, in either direction? Is it not clear that there are no jobs either in North Wales or on Merseyside, and that there is no future for the workers?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is confirming that we are dealing with a United Kingdom economy, and that within the United Kingdom there must be some movement and some flexibility. He has given the lie totally to the suggestion made repeatedly this afternoon that, in some extraordinary way, an attack has been made on Wales and Welsh workers. There must be mobility within the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that people are coming on and off the unemployment register and going into jobs all the time.

Economic Situation

Mr. Alan Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends next to meet the Council for the Principality to discuss the economic situation in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have no present plans to do so.

Mr. Williams: When the Secretary of State eventually meets the Council will


he explain how 60,000 redundancies—1,000 a week since the Government came to office—in some mysterious way improve our economic prospects? As he says that the Prime Minister's blunder was not a blunder, and that mobility was meant to be within Wales—although some was meant to be within Britain—will he say clearly where in Wales should the unemployed go to find jobs? If he thinks that they should go outside Wales, will he say where?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman appears to ignore entirely the fact that, although the unemployment figures are too high, a large number of people are going into new jobs every day of the week. Of those on the unemployment register, only a proportion are on it for long periods. He should not seek to give the impression that there are not job opportunities in Wales, as in other parts of Britain.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is not unemployment a widespread phenomenon throughout the industrial world? Are not the countries best placed to deal with it those that have mastered their inflation? Are not the regions best qualified to attract new industries those that show the greatest readiness to adapt to new conditions?

Mr. Edwards: I am absolutely certain that that is right. Because great change is taking place in Wales at present, because we are preparing the industrial sites and providing the industrial locations on an unprecedented scale, and because we have excellent communications, I feel sure that many new jobs will be created in Wales in the coming year.

Mr. Williams: Will the Secretary of State now give us an answer to one simple, straightforward question? Where in Wales is there such a surplus of vacancies over unemployed that it is desirable that the unemployed from other parts of Wales should move into those areas?

Mr. Edwards: Earlier this afternoon I was asked a question about Bridgend. There are new expansion projects taking place on those industrial estates—at Ford, Sony and elsewhere—that are at present providing job opportunities for those outside the immediate locality. There are many other examples. There are the factories that have been filled in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardigan

(Mr. Howells), and the factories that are being filled at the heads of the valleys. The right hon. Gentleman will be doing a grave disservice—to be added to the many others that he has rendered—if he suggests that there are not job opportunities for people in Wales.

LIBRARY SERVICES

Mr. Cook: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the provision contained in Cmnd. 7841 for expenditure on library services.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cook: How can the right hon. Gentleman be satisfied with figures showing that the Government will impose a cut in real terms of 18 per cent. on the expenditure on local authority libraries in the programme that the Government inherited? How can he defend the barbarian priorities of a Government who impose that kind of cut on the main facilities which provide the principal contact with the arts for millions of people outside the West End of London? Why was his Prime Minister able to go to the Royal Academy and have the brass neck to misrepresent the expenditure on libraries as showing an increase over the next five years?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. As the White Paper on Public Expenditure shows that provision for the arts and libraries in Great Britain will fall from £383 million this year to £370 million in 1982–83 and 1983–84, that is a reduction of only 3⅓ per cent. in the overall arts budget. By comparison with cuts in other spheres of public services, the arts are not doing too badly.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what is important is not always simply the expenditure on library services but the time taken to make the decisions? He will know of my interest in the Southampton university library. The Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, after 15 months, has not come to a decision whether that famous library should or should not have the Wellington papers. Will he at least


take away the message that we need a decision before too long?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The expenditure on local libraries is determined by local authorities.
Southampton university library has made an application for the Wellington papers. I have been in correspondence with the advisory committee on this matter and I hope that a final decision will be reached very shortly.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a specific assurance to the House that he will steadfastly oppose any introduction of charges for the borrowing of books from libraries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is on the cards.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not on my cards. [Interruption.] I am glad to have that unsolicited tribute. The Government are totally opposed to an introduction of library charges. I hope my reply will lay that bogy finally to rest. And, please—no more applause from my claque.

ASSOCIATION FOR BUSINESS SPONSORSHIP OF THE ARTS

Mrs. Renee Short: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met members of the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I last met the Director of ABSA and representatives of companies who subscribe to that association at the reception that I gave, with your gracious permission, Mr. Speaker, in your State Rooms on 16 July.

Mrs. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress being made with ABSA? Is he aware that there are seven theatres dark in the West End at present and that a large number of small theatres up and down the country are urgently in need of help that the Arts Council cannot provide? Does he not think that ABSA will support only those projects that are likely to be profitable and that it will not support new or experimental work? How does this cut across the right hon. Gentleman's committee of honour that he recently set up?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know of the hon. Lady's interest in the theatre and I share her concern about the future of the London theatre, about the number of theatres that are dark, and about the position outside London. However, the activities of ABSA will undoubtedly be beneficial in this direction. ABSA does not sponsor projects directly, but since the Government gave a grant to ABSA of £25,000 to further its work, its membership has grown from 58 to 88 companies, and I think that the theatre will benefit.

Mr. Freud: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his eclectic contacts to provide harmless and inexpensive incentives, so that sponsors might at least be in line for the same honours and Royal garden parties, for keeping theatres open, that are currently accorded to people who have worked in theatres for 20, 30 or 40 years?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The question of honours is not totally within my control. If services are given through sponsorship, it is legitimate for the hon. Member to suggest that they should be recognised in some way. I would welcome that.

Mr. Mellor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he deserves the congratulations of all those who are concerned about the arts on the vigorous efforts he has been making to get further substantial private sponsorship for all manner of arts projects? Can he give the House any further information about the progress that he has made?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those generous words. I am satisfied that the campaign to promote business sponsorship of the arts is making excellent progress. I am not in a position to give a statistical report on the matter but I am sure, from the evidence I have already received, that the campaign is successful. I emphasise that it is to supplement public support for the arts and not to replace it.

Mr. Faulds: Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman admit that, despite all his earnest entreaties, the truer figure for business sponsorship, which he puts at £4 million to £5 million a year, is in reality less than £3 million, as established


in detailed research at the London Business School? Will he, in all responsibility, set up an investigation to establish the actual figure for the money coming in from business sponsorship?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The figure of £4 million to £5 million is not my figure; it is the ABSA figure. It has recently been called into question by research which shows that the sum is closer to £3 million. I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and will shortly be setting in hand research in this area, because it is important to know the precise amount. What is important now is not the amount of existing sponsorship but how to increase it. Whether the figure is £4 million or £3 million, I want to see it doubled this year.

LIVE ORCHESTRAL MUSIC (SUPPORT)

Mr. Neubert: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take further steps to support the provision of live orchestral music.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): My responsibility in this field is to provide resources to the Arts Council, which allocated some £3·5 million in 1979–80 towards the direct support of orchestras. The council has the question of support for live orchestral music and the rest of the live arts under continuous review.

Mr. Neubert: Will my hon. Friend agree that the accommodation reached between the BBC and the Musicians' Union, under the inspiration of Lord Goodman, is good news for British music? But will he also make it plain on all occasions that there will need to be continuing support from all sources, whether from public bodies, private business or the listening audience, if live orchestral music is to survive the present recession without further losses?

Mr. Macfarlane: I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend to Lord Goodman. One can only hope that the proposed settlement of the musicians' strike will be approved by members of the Musicians' Union. I hope that the private sponsorship of orchestral live music, live art, which has occurred in recent months, will be continued. There are many good examples. My hon. Friend was right to highlight this important consideration.

Mr. Dalyell: What does "under continuous review" mean in this context? What practical help will the Government provide?

Mr. Macfarlane: . The increase in the Arts Council's grant has been steadily improved over the years. The Arts Council continuously reviews all the aspects that I listed. The Government, whilst maintaining an arm's length stance, acknowledge the important contribution of the Arts Council. There is a continuous review, as I said.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on changes in the organisation and management of the National Health Service in Scotland.
I received about 400 comments on the consultative document that was published last December, and these have been carefully studied. There is a considerable measure of broad agreement with the view there expressed that the administrative structure of the Service could be simplified.
The reactions also confirmed my own view that no changes should be made in the number of health boards or the areas for which they are responsible. I propose, however, to ask those boards making use of services provided in Edinburgh and Glasgow to form joint consultative committees to secure the coordinated planning and operation of these services.
Opinion was divided on the need for non-statutory districts below area level. Three out of the 10 boards with districts at present agreed that districts could be abolished, and I intend to encourage these boards to take appropriate steps to this end. The other seven boards, for various reasons and with varying degrees of emphasis, indicated that they would prefer to retain a district structure. I intend to pursue this matter further with these seven boards.
The boards generally agreed that as much authority as possible should be delegated to the unit or sector level. I shall ask all boards to make the necessary changes in their arrangements to ensure that this takes place.
It was generally accepted that the professional advisory structure could be simplified, though varying views were expressed on what might be done, and I intend to have further discussions with the principal professional and other interests.
There was a very marked division of opinion on local health councils, from strong support to outright opposition. I am not persuaded that they need be a permanent feature of the NHS in Scotland,

but they are statutory bodies, and any change would require legislation. When there is a prospect of new Health Service legislation I shall decide whether to propose abolition of these councils.
The changes to be made in district organisation and management levels below area will have substantial implications for staff. Proposals to deal with these implications, covering arrangements for filling posts, for staff protection, for premature retirement and for redundancy compensation, are being discussed with the staff side and I hope that a satisfactory agreement can be reached soon.
The implementation of these new arrangements will take some time, but I believe that they will improve efficiency and contribute to the more effective administration of the National Health Service in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement was a very thin and unsatisfactory one? Having heard it, we can understand why the Government wanted to slip it through as a written answer and not explain it to the House.
On the general question of the major reform of the National Health Service structure, the right hon. Gentleman knows that he has our support in the view that that is unnecessary, but if the area health boards are to be maintained, as they are at the moment, that will have important implications for districts.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are suspicious of what he said about districts? Obviously, area health boards with districts want to maintain them. Indeed, for reasons of geography and of population it seems inevitable that districts will have to be retained in many of these area health boards. Otherwise, we shall have unitary authorities with populations, for example, much greater than the Secretary of State for Social Services has in my view rightly decided are necessary for England and Wales. Which are the three boards that have decided that they can abolish their districts? Will the Secretary of State take it that we shall not accept that by administrative fiat the rest of the districts in the other area health boards can be abolished without full and open debate in the House?
What the Secretary of State said about the professional structure was quite


vague. There is some need for change here. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he said is unsatisfactory, because it takes us not a single step further forward?
I should make it clear to the Secretary of State that we are absolutely opposed to the abolition of local health councils. What he said on this aspect was even less satisfactory than what was said for England and Wales, where it has now been agreed that the community health councils—the English and Welsh equivalents—will continue and that there will be a consultation document later about the powers of these councils, their method of appointment, their relations with the statutory health authorities, and so on. That is what we expect for Scotland. It is not simply a question of maintaining or abolishing them. We are willing to consider the way in which local health councils operate, but we are aware that the right hon. Gentleman wants to abolish them and that if he cannot do it right away he wants to erode their powers and responsibilities. The view taken by the Opposition and by the vast majority of patients is that what is required is not an erosion but an increase in the responsibilities of these councils, to make them even more effective representatives of patients in Scotland.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite what he said, the fact that he has reached so few firm decisions on reorganisation is bound to lead to uncertainty among the staff and a lowering of morale, which is already low because of the cuts in the National Health Service?
Finally, we shall expect a full debate before any final decisions are taken, first, because it is now absolutely clear from the meeting that the right hon. Gentleman had last Friday with the chairmen of the area health boards that there are to be real cuts in the NHS in Scotland this year, despite all the obfuscation that we have had from the Secretary of State about this matter over the past few months and, secondly, because on the last occasion on which we debated this matter—9 June—we had an extraordinarily inaccurate and appallingly ignorant statement by the Under-Secretary of State who deals with health and social service matters about the present structure of the NHS in Scotland, which has given rise to considerable resentment in Health Services circles there.

Mr. Younger: I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his remarks. It does not seem to have any relationship to the statement.
I was not sure what the right hon. Gentleman was complaining about at the beginning of his questions. He seemed to agree that no major changes were required in the National Health Service in Scotland but to complain that there were no major changes in the statement. With respect, he cannot have it both ways.
The three boards that consider that they can do without their districts are Fife, Ayr and Arran and Forth Valley. I shall discuss this matter with the rest of the boards and hope to reach agreement on the most useful and right thing to do in each case.
I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that I should have imposed a new arrangement on the professional structure without having proper discussions with those concerned. That is not my way of doing things. I shall have full discussions with all concerned before deciding what should be done.
I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view on local health councils. It is well known what local health councils do and how they do it. If they wish to carry out further studies into how they could do it better, or to change what they do, it is up to them to do it, but there is no point in laying on an expensive inquiry from the centre to decide that when everybody knows what they do. As I said, some people consider that they should be abolished, whereas others feel strongly that they should be retained. I shall stick to what I said in my statement about that matter.
I regret that there must be some feeling of uncertainty among the staff, but there will be full consultations as quickly as possible, so that all may know where they stand.
It will be for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to decide whether there should be a debate. I would welcome a debate at any time that it could be arranged, so that we might discuss the financial side of the NHS in Scotland. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the budgets put forward for this year sums


of money were given that would involve a small element of growth in real terms. But inflation that takes place during the year reduces the cash available. In that respect the Health Service is in a situation not different from that of everyone else in the country.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Secretary of State confirm—as I understand is the case—that there will be no difference in the medical arrangements for the Islands? Secondly, since the whole of the exercise that the Secretary of State proposes must presumably be directed at economies, in both staff and the money spent upon staff and the administrative side of the service, what estimate has he made of the economies that will result if his proposals go through?

Mr. Younger: On the second point, it is too early to say how much saving of money or manpower can be made. I am anxious to proceed in a way that produces agreement with the boards on the most effective way of doing this, but we think that there should be considerable savings in money as well as greater efficiency, which is the main point of the changes.
It is not proposed that any changes should be made in the Islands, but I shall be discussing with them what changes, if any, they can make to become more efficient.

Mr. Sproat: Will my right hon. Friend accept that anything that he does to get rid of a whole batch of bureaucrats will be widely welcomed throughout Scotland? Does he agree that in recent years one of the greatest scandals in Scottish hospitals has been the explosive growth of administrators at the cost of medical staff, and that there is a continuing and vital need to cut back on administrators and to concentrate scarce resources on medical staff, where they are really needed?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. It is my impression that the vast majority of people who work in the Health Service agree that the Service can only gain the more efficient they become and that there is no help to anyone in having people doing jobs that are not strictly necessary.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer three short questions? First, does he have plans for any kind of restructuring of the primary care sector? I have in mind, mainly, the family doctor aspect, which is a key area in the Health Service.
Secondly, what plans does the right hon. Gentleman have to encourage doctors and nurses who left clinical practice to do administrative work during the last reorganisation to go back in to clinical work, where they ought to be?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman continue to encourage consultants in the NHS—as they are doing at present in Scotland—to stay 100 per cent. within the NHS?

Mr. Younger: Those are three very important questions. I think that the best answer that I can give—as they all affect future policy on the Health Service—is that there is a great deal of work going on in relation to those matters, and in the autumn I hope to be able to make further statements about future policy. Certainly this would cover such matters as restructuring in the primary care sector and what we can do to encourage those who have left the profession of medicine for administrative jobs to go back there. I shall certainly be giving attention to that matter.

Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend proposing any improvements in the ambulance service? Is he aware that there are shortages of psychiatric and geriatric nurses in many areas? Has he any proposals for short training for local people, where there are establishments for elderly or mentally ill people, so that this shortage can be met without detracting from the major professionalism of professional nurses?

Mr. Younger: There are no immediate plans for any major changes in the ambulance service, which has been going through some reorganisation recently, but that is something that we keep under review all the time. As for the qualification for psychiatric and geriatric nurses, we look at ways of making it more attractive to people to come into these sectors of nursing, but there is no short cut to having highly skilled and qualified people doing this work. We have to bear that in mind.

Mr. Douglas: In view of the Prime Minister's assertions about voluntarism, will the Secretary of State endeavour to justify how he can have a Sword of Damocles hanging over the local health councils?

Mr. Younger: I did not quite pick up the first half of what the hon. Gentleman asked. However, I do not consider this to be the sort of Sword of Damocles that would in any way interfere with what local health councils are doing. They must know perfectly well that they have to give satisfaction to the public in what they do, and I am sure that they will continue to do that, and they will have support from me in doing that while they still exist.

Mr. McQuarrie: When he is discussing the future of the National Health Service in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the serious need that there should be no further closures of hospitals in rural areas, or any loss of medical practices in those rural areas? Additionally, when making appointments to health boards, will he consider giving greater consideration to people of experience in local authorities and the medical profession?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I appreciate his close interest in the question of the provision of medical services in rural areas, which is a very important matter. It is also a difficult matter. I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking that there will be no further closures but I can undertake that any closures that are brought to my attention will be looked into very carefully with a view to trying to maintain the best possible service for the people in the area but bearing in mind the fact that sometimes some services are extremely costly and can result in an undue drain on resources for other Health Service purposes in the area.
As for appointments to boards, the principal criterion that I always follow is to find the best person for the job. I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend rightly says about the importance of getting medical people and local authority people involved.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Secretary of State agree that he has created, if anything, more uncertainty and confusion by

this statement? It is almost worse than having no statement at all. Cannot he just tell us now that districts will stay where districts are wanted? Secondly, will he remove—I repeat the term—the Sword of Damocles that he has now hung over local councils, which, after all, are doing voluntary work and which have been thrown into uncertainty? How shall we get a response from them with the kind of statement that we have had today?

Mr. Younger: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that it is in the interests of the Health Service and everyone who works in it that the best use should be made of the limited funds that we shall be able to afford for it. If some area health boards think that they can do without districts it is surely right to let them do without districts. For the others, I intend to discuss matters with them, so as to be certain that we look at every possible way in which we may be able to save money or staff in reducing districts in some or all of those cases.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the health councils. If they are feeling in any way as he describes, they have the remedy in their own hands, which is to demonstrate to everyone that they really are the useful bodies that some people think they are.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that one of the shortcomings of the Health Service is a lack of democratic control? In so far as local health councils fulfil that need, however inadequately, it is very important that they should be preserved and that their powers should be strengthened. Does the Minister recognise that his statement will be widely interpreted—certainly on the Opposition Benches, and, I guess, outside the House—as a determination on his part, despite the will of the people, to abolish both the districts and the councils at a local level—bodies that provide, however inadequately, for the consumer interest?
Does the Minister recognise that his statement, combined with the provisions


of the Health Services Bill, is an indication that the Government are determined to smash the principle on which the Health Service was originally created? Is not this a determination to cut the cost of the Service and to rely increasingly on the private sector, where the depth of one's purse determines the quality of the service that one gets?

Mr. Younger: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has got it magnificently wrong, even for him.

Mr. Hamilton: I got it absolutely right.

Mr. Younger: This is a sign that the Government are committed to trying to spend the public's money in the best possible way to provide the best possible Health Service. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would warmly support that. As for the local health councils, I think that the hon Gentleman has got that matter wrong, too. Whatever else they are, they are certainly not democratic. They are appointed, in just the same way as health boards are appointed. They are no more and no less democratic than the boards. If the hon. Gentleman wants democracy in the Health Service, he will have to make them directly elected or something like that, but I do not think that that is suggested by anyone.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision not to take a simple blanket view of the case for or against districts will be widely welcomed, because the fact is that conditions vary enormously between different areas of Scotland?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in that. Governments who decide that everyone has to be treated in exactly the same way sometimes make mistakes. I am prepared to consider each of these cases on its merits and to try to do the best possible thing for each area.

Mr. Cook: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement is far less significant than the statement that he made outside Parliament on Friday, to the effect that health boards would not get the resources that they need to meet inflation? Is he aware that Lothian health

board does not fill nursing vacancies now? If so, why does he continue to pretend that his cuts will not affect the quality of patient care?

Mr. Younger: The chairmen of the health boards came to see me about financial problems on Friday. I told them that the whole public sector must play its part and cut public expenditure to a level that the nation can afford. The only difference about the National Health Service is that it has been greatly helped, because it has had more generous budgets than other public sector bodies. As for cash limits, once the budgets have been laid out the position of the NHS is the same as that of everybody else. Inflation during the year reduces the amount available for expenditure. Not only health boards but businesses, families and all other persons are in the same position.

Mr. Lang: Although I warmly welcome such a sensible statement, may I impress two priorities on my right hon. Friend in relation to future discussions, namely, the need to improve geriatric services in rural areas and the invaluable work done by small rural hospitals?

Mr. Younger: I know that this subject is particularly important in my hon. Friend's area. In many areas of Scotland rural health services play an important part in the community. We shall bear that in mind.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to refer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) about the Sword of Damocles. In answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) about area health councils, the Secretary of State said that some people thought that they were useful bodies. Is the Secretary of State among those people?

Mr. Younger: I sought to record that although the majority of representations that we have received are in favour of maintaining local health councils, a substantial number think that they should be abolished. I believe that this issue should be looked at with them and with the area health boards to ensure that we have got the right answer before we legislate. That is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Myles: Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (McQuarrie), will my right hon. Friend encourage area health boards, especially the area health board in my area, to improve their public relations? Will he discourage them from continuing their plans for centralisation? In my area, it is not centralisation, because everything is being taken to one corner.

Mr. Younger: I shall draw the attention of all health boards to the need to improve public relations. I know that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that one of the main aims of reorganising the National Health Service is to bring decision-making further down towards the hospital level. That is desirable, particularly in those areas where districts are being removed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, at this day's sitting, if proceedings on the Motions relating to Social Security are not disposed of before Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) and Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against Statutory Instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), put any Question already proposed from the Chair, any outstanding Motions may thereupon be made and the Questions there on shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It would not be appropriate for me to discuss one of the orders, but a debate on child benefit that would, without this motion, take only one and a half hours would be inadequate. I hope that we shall be able to discuss child benefit, among other things, until 10 o'clock. I also hope that we shall be able to debate issues such as child benefit, which affects half the population of the country—13 million parents and their 13 million children—for longer than an hour and a half. It would be preferable to have a day's debate on the subject. In addition, any debate should take place in advance of any Government decision on future levels of child benefit.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the terms of the business motion to which the House has just agreed I am willing to allow the substance of all 11 motions to be discussed during the debate on the first motion.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS (UPRATING)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 17th July be approved.
The House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your recognition that it would be helpful to discuss all the orders and prayers together. The House will, I think recognise that these fall into three main groups: first, there are the uprating instruments, that is to say, those increasing the levels of pensions, child benefit, family income supplement and other benefits next November; secondly, the instruments giving effect to the first stage of the reform of the supplementary benefit system provided for in the Social Security Act; and, thirdly, a small group of miscellaneous instruments.
I turn straight away to the uprating instruments. In this context I should like to draw the House's attention to the report of the Government Actuary, which was published last week.
The uprating orders before the House raise expenditure on social security benefits by £3,000 million in a full year. The retirement pension will go up from £23·30 a week to £2715 for a single person and the married rate will go up from £37·30 to £43·45 a week. The widows allowance goes up from £32·60 a week to £3800. The attendance allowance goes up from £18·60 to £21·65 and the mobility allowance from £1200 to £14–50. The full list of increases is to be found in the appendix to the Government Actuary's report.
Mr. Speaker, £3,000 million is a substantial sum by any standards, but, as the House is well aware—for we have already in this Session debated the issues at great length—even that sum is the result of making some savings by increasing some benefits by five percentage points less than the main long-term benefits and by making the other savings which the House has approved in the Social Security (No. 2) Act.
This Government have had to face the economic facts of life. We have had to come to terms with the reality of the world


that we live in, in a way that our predecessors, unless compelled by the International Monetary Fund, did not. We had to face hard decisions which were made all the harder because of their failure to act in time. We have had to find savings both in national insurance benefits and in the social security benefits, which are a charge on the Consolidated Fund, in order to contribute to the Government's overall economic objectives.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I have only just started, and I should like to continue.
As well as the reduced uprating for short-term beneficiaries and invalidity pensioners, we are uprating other pensions and other long-term benefits in line with prices rather than earnings, and we have had to put back the uprating date to 24 November. Despite the changes, we have done as much as we can for those most in need. We have protected the position of retirement pensioners and widows by keeping the link with prices. We have maintained "the safety net" by raising the supplementary allowance in line with prices while aligning the supplementary pension with the retirement pension; and we have given extra help to the severely disabled by raising mobility allowance by substantially more than prices.
The main increases in the orders are based on a forecast that prices will rise by about 16½ per cent. between the up-rating in November 1979 and the up-rating date in November 1980. This was the figure announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the Budget last March, but that, in law, was not the critical date. The law does not permit me to rely on any forecast made last March. The House will, I think, recognise that the law quite clearly requires me to make the best estimate I can of what has to be done next November to restore the value of the benefits in question. That estimate has to be made at the time that the orders are laid. I can tell the House that had I been driven to the conclusion on the evidence available to me that the Budget estimate was too low and that 16frac12; per cent. would be insufficient to restore the value of the pension in November, I should, as the law

stands, have had to come to the House and lay an order consistent with that higher figure. This has not always been clear in the past, because generally the laying of the order has followed closely on the Budget announcement. This year, because the Budget was early, and because the order could not be laid until the two social security Bills had been enacted, there has been a much longer gap. But it is the date of the laying of the order that counts in law.
In consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have had to consider the whole matter with extreme care. Some outside forecasters have been suggesting that the Budget forecasts were too optimistic, and I will confess to the House, as I indicated late one night in Standing Committee, that earlier this year I began to wonder whether these forecasters were not right—[Interruption.] Labour Members ought to be careful about slips of the tongue. I never understood why that seemed at the time greatly to excite the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). However, since then the picture has begun to look better. In contrast to the forecasts made even only a couple of months ago, the outside forecasters are now accepting that there will indeed be a significant deceleration in the rate of inflation.
The House will have seen an article in the Financial Times on 12 July which said:
The outlook for inflation has undoubtedly improved. Most economists would now agree with the prediction made by the Chancellor on Thursday, that despite the setbacks of the last wage round, inflation will fall back to 16½ per cent. by November, as the Treasury had forecast.

Mr. Bennett: If the Secretary of State is suggesting that there should be a 16½ per cent. uprating, does he accept that, based on a 54-week year, that assumes only a 16 per cent. inflation rate? Therefore, what is the Secretary of State actually assuming? Does he expect the inflation rate to be 16 per cent. or 16½ per cent?

Mr. Jenkin: I have made it absolutely clear, and it has been made clear in the Budget Statement and in all the debates that we have had since, that the statutory figure must apply between one uprating


date and the next. That is the basis of the forecasts on which we have now laid these orders.
The June RPI figure at 21 per cent. was a reduction on that for May, which was 21·9 per cent. Next month, the effect of the increases in VAT in 1979 will come out of the index, causing, as the Chancellor told the House the other day, a substantial reduction in the year-on-year figure.
But that is not all. Hon. Members will have seen the recent CBI survey showing a very large drop in the proportion of respondents expecting to raise prices in the next four months—the lowest figure since 1973. Moreover, the rate of increase in the wholesale output price index has been falling each month since January and that, too, is an important lead indicator for retail prices. There is also increasing evidence that imported commodity prices are starting to fall.
In the light of all these factors and on the basis of the best advice available to me, I am now satisfied that a 16·5 per cent. increase by 24 November next is the best estimate that I can make of the sum needed to restore the value of the benefits in question to that which they held at the time of the last uprating. That, therefore, is the figure on which the increase in retirement pension and other long-term benefits is based, while invalidity benefit and the short-term benefits will go up by 11½ per cent., the 5 per cent. abatement being in lieu of full taxation of these benefits.

Mr. Stanley Orme: In another place Baroness Young referred to the fact that if there was a shortfall the Government would have to take that into account. Will the Secretary of State tell the House now whether the Government will make good any shortfall on the 16½ per cent.?

Mr. Jenkin: Of course I cannot guarantee that 16½ per cent. will turn out to be precisely right. That is the best estimate that I can make at present. If it proves to be too low, I assure the House that we will give serious consideration next year to making good from then on any significant shortfall, having regard to economic and other circumstances then. No Government can be expected to give an absolute guarantee that they will make good any significant

shortfall, come what may—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"]. Our predecessors were very careful never to give any such undertaking.

Mr. Orme: I did.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Member says that he made it good, but on the contrary it was we who made it good last year. I hope that the assurance that I have just given the House will help to allay any anxieties that may exist.
As I have said, I am now satisfied that a 16½ per cent. increase is right, and that is the figure on which the increase in benefits is based, including those that are subject to 5 per cent. abatement.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Even the Budget forecasts accepted officially a possible margin of error of up to 2 per cent. on that 16½ per cent. How can the right hon. Gentleman be so confident all these months later that a figure of 16½ per cent. quoted at Budget time, which had a margin of error of up to 2 per cent. admitted by the Treasury, is now an acceptable figure for next November?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I said at the beginning of my speech. The critical date in law is not the date of the Budget, when the announcement was made, but the date on which I lay the orders. I am grateful to have the support of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). That is the date on which I must make the estimate on which the uprating figure is based. We are now less than five months away from November. At Budget time we were nine months away. Because we are now nearer the date, forecasts can be made with greater certainty. I am not saying with absolute certainty that this will be a fact, but that is the best estimate that I can make. If it is challenged, presumably in proceedings before the courts, I shall have to give evidence to justify not only the reasons for my decision but my bona fides. I hope that that will be accepted.
On the question of the invalidity benefit. I remind the House that the Government have undertaken that when that benefit and its industrial injuries counterpart—the unemployability supplement—are brought fully into taxation, subject to the availability of resources, the benefit will be


restored to the same level as the retirement pension.
I now come to the Government Actuary's report, which, not surprisingly, has aroused some interest, focused on the forecast surplus of £687 million in the national insurance fund over the financial year 1980–81. I see from the press that some right hon. and hon. Members opposite have leapt to the conclusion that, far from making cuts in the social security programme, we should be able to expand it. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) told an audience the other day that the surplus could be used to finance her Committee's report on perinatal mortality. No doubt we shall have all sorts of other interesting suggestions about the surplus during the course of this debate.
But all this is entirely to misunderstand the nature of the Government Actuary's figures. First, there is the sheer uncertainty of such forecasts.  [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) wisely did not join in the mirth. He has held responsibilities in this field and he is as aware as I am how difficult it is to pinpoint the surplus accurately. Just look, for instance, at what happened in 1979–80.
In December 1978, when our predecessors fixed the national insurance contribution rates for 1979–80, basing himself on the assumptions he was given then about earnings, prices and unemployment, the Government Actuary forecast a small surplus for the year of £34 million. Then in July last year we set the benefit increases from 1979, and the Government Actuary was forecasting much the same figure—£35 million. However, that was entirely fortuitous, because it was the product of substantial variations from the earlier forecast which cancelled each other out. By November last year the picture had changed. The forecast surplus for that year was £349 million, which broadly reflected three factors—income from contributions was up because earnings were rising faster than forecast, unemployment was lower than forecast, and interest on the fund's investments was higher than forecast. That was last November.
The latest report shows what actually happened in that year—a surplus not of £34 million but of £542 million. Leaving

aside technical factors, that further increase is due to even higher earnings than assumed in November and also something that no one foresaw—reduced sickness claims.

Mr. David Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman was seeking to compare this extraordinary disparity and previous disparities. An estimate may be made at one time and the figures can prove to be different. However, two factors are very different. In order to produce this high figure, the right hon. Gentleman increased the percentage of contribution, which we did not. He thereby made his own contribution to inflation. Secondly, we used the national insurance fund to increase benefits and not to abate them, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own word.

Mr. Jenkin: Although no doubt of interest, both those points are totally irrelevant. One simply cannot regard the surplus of £687 million as a surplus to be spent on reducing contributions or increasing benefits.
The same fluctuations occurred in earlier years, and it is not hard to see why. The surplus or deficit on a year's working is the difference between two huge aggregates—the income from contributions and other sources, and the payment of benefits. Quite small percentage changes in each of those aggregates can lead to large fluctuations in the surplus, and can turn a surplus into a deficit. I make that point so that the House can see that it would be wildly irresponsible to regard that forecast surplus as a firm foundation for increasing expenditure.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister is saying that he does not believe that the Government Actuary has it right, but he is putting through these orders on the basis of what he believes will happen. Why is that likely to be more accurate than the Government Actuary's estimate?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has not understood the basis on which the Government Actuary works. He is given a number of assumptions. Governments of both parties have made clear that those assumptions are not forecasts. They are assumptions on which he is asked to make his actuarial calculations and estimate what is likely to happen to the movement of the surplus and the fund. In fixing the


16½ per cent. I have made the best forecast that I can of what is likely to be the position.
To base continuing spending on what may be a one-year flash-in-the-pan surplus, as has been suggested, would be utterly wrong. It would be crazy. Even if we had a surplus of £687 million in the working of the fund in 1980–81, it would be less than the surplus that the right hon. Gentleman had in 1976–77. It was then £928 million. We had no suggestions then from the Government that they would increase expenditure.

Mr. Reg Race: My right hon. Friend was not cutting benefits. That is the difference.

Mr. Jenkin: That figure, moreover, is in cash terms. If one looks at the estimated surplus as a percentage of the payments from the fund—the outgo—one can see that it is a much smaller margin than in earlier years. In 1974–75, under a Labour Government, the surplus, as a percentage of outgo, was 12½ per cent. In 1976–77, despite the huge figure of £928 million, the surplus as a percentage fell to 11½ per cent. This year's estimated figure of £687 million is not 12½ or 11½ per cent.; it is less than 4½ per cent. of the estimated outgo. Far from it representing an unexpected windfall bonanza, some of my hon. Friends may wonder whether we are cutting it a bit fine. Of course we shall have to look at the updated forecast next November, when we come to set next year's contribution rates.
Finally, we should consider the surplus in relation to the whole fund. The balance of the fund has been steadily falling over the years in terms of benefits. In 1960 the fund represented 86 weeks' worth of benefit. By 1970 it had fallen to 26 weeks' worth, and it is now about 18 weeks' worth. That is the margin in the fund available to meet emergencies, and the House will recognise that it is not very big. As I have explained, the forecast surplus represents a smaller proportion of the year's outgo than in the previous year. Therefore, as has been made clear in the Government's Actuary's report, the consequence is that "as a working balance the fund is nevertheless estimated to decline in the year in relative terms".
For all those reasons, I have to make it abundantly clear to the House and the

country that the forecasts surplus cannot in any way affect the decisions that the Government and the House have to take about restraining expenditure on the social security programme. That programme is estimated to take about 27 per cent. of total public spending, and it would be unrealistic to imagine that, over a period when the Government are seeking substantially to reduce public spending as a proportion of the national product, the social security programme could be exempted. It could not, and the House, albeit with reluctance, has already recognised that.
I must, moreover, make the point that many of the changes made in the No. 2 Act do not take effect until next year or the year following. I can only repeat what I made clear in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) at the Report stage of the Bill—that just how the balance is to be worked out for 1982 and beyond between contributions, benefits and surplus will be for the Government to decide when we see the Actuary's report for 1982–83, that is to say, around the autumn of 1981.
Let me repeat that there is nothing in the Government Actuary's report that causes us in any way to modify our view, which was accepted by the House at the time of the Budget, that it was only prudent and responsible to reduce the cost of the social security programme.
The instruments before us represent the implementation of the changes that were forecast at the time of the Budget. The House will by now be familiar with the details of those, and, with one or two exceptions, I do not need to go into them further.
However, I wish to say a word about child benefit, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) and others have taken a consistent and close interest in the matter. Here again the proposed increases are in line with the announcement in the Budget. Child benefit goes up 75p to £4·75 per child, and the premium for one-parent families goes up by 50p to £3 per family. The increase will cost £420 million in a full year, net of offsets against other benefits, and brings the total annual expenditure on child benefit to £3,300 million a year. I realise that that is not as much as some hon. Members hoped


for, but it is as much as the Government feel can be afforded at present.
The House will expect me to say something about our attitude to the future of child benefit. Many hon. Members have properly expressed concern about the level of support for working families with children. I therefore take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's commitment to family support. We are committed to the child benefit system, and it is our intention, subject to economic and other circumstances, to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value.
Child benefit does not, of course, stand alone. Family income supplement plays a key role as a benefit aimed at low-income families in work. Because of the need to retain incentives for such families, the Government are making proportionately larger increases in FIS than in most other benefits. The details are in the regulations and provide for an increase in the maximum weekly rate for a one-child family from £13·50 to £17, with a further £1·50 for each additional child instead of the existing £1. From November, because of those increases, we anticipate the average number receiving FIS will rise to about 95,000 families compared with around 85,000 this year. Perhaps most significantly, the average weekly payment will rise to about £10 next year—almost exactly double the average weekly rate when we took office in May 1979.
Next, there are two miscellaneous instruments. One deals with the Christmas bonus, which we are repeating this year, as Conservative Administrations have done each year since we introduced it. I know that the bonus is greatly welcomed by pensioners and others who receive it who find even this modest help—and it is only modest—around Christmas most useful. The Social Security (Benefit) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Amendment Regulations make some technical changes that have been approved by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend is right to stress how much the Christmas bonus is appreciated, but will he take on board for the coming years that unless we are able to increase the bonus significantly—I

would suggest doubling it—within the next two or three years, it will begin to become almost meaningless?

Mr. Jenkin: That is a factor of which Ministers are aware, but I can give absolutely no undertaking to the House in response to my hon. Friend's plea for a doubling of the bonus.

Mr. Ennals: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as pensioners have had a 54-week year, instead of a 52-week year, the Christmas bonus is worth nothing?

Mr. Jenkin: That is a rubbishy point.

Mr. Ennals: It is not to the pensioners.

Mr. Jenkin: I want to reassure the House that the married women and widows regulations do no more than bring the law into line with what both we and our predecessors thought had always been the position.
I turn to the rest of the regulations bringing into effect the first stage of the reform to the supplementary benefits scheme. I can deal with them rather more briefly. I have no doubt that many hon. Members will wish to raise detailed points on the regulations and my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Social Security, who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will do his best to answer them at the end of the debate.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the regulations are the next stage of a process of simplifying the supplementary benefit scheme, which was launched by our predecessors as long ago as 1976. The review report entitled "Social Assistance" was published in July 1978 and was the subject of widespread consultation. We inherited that work and carried it forward. The first step was legislation, and that is now in the Social Security Act 1980 which became law in May.
The main change that we are making in this first stage of the reform is to convert discretion into entitlement. Instead of there being a wide measure of discretion exercised by officers of my Department under the guidance of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, there will be legal rules clearly set out in regulations with published guidance to help claimants and their advisers. Claimants will be entitled to a written statement of their benefit.
There will be a new adjudication system, similar to the national insurance scheme, with a final right of appeal to the social security commissioner. I think that it is widely agreed in all parts of the House that this represents a significant improvement.
Not the least of the advantages of such a system is that it will scotch once and for all the widespread myths about the lavishness of supplementary benefit provision. I hope to goodness that we have heard the last of colour television sets—with or without doors—being provided to those receiving supplementary benefits.

Mr. Frank Field: Those claims were made by the Conservative side.

Mr. Jenkin: They came from all over the country, and neither I nor any of my predecessors was able to trace a case back to its origins.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Where is Sproat?

Mr. Jenkin: Colour television sets are not included in the regulations and they will not be provided.
The new structure for which detailed provision is made in these regulations became necessary because without it, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Salford, West recognises, the system was heading for breakdown. There has been a huge growth in the number and amount of exceptional weekly additions to benefit and lump sum grants. Practice has tended to vary quite widely across the country. Staff have found great difficulty in trying to exercise their discretion fairly. As a result, there has been growing conflict between claimants and staff, which has made for difficulties. Perhaps most unsatisfactory of all has been the growth over the years of a mass of secret, unpublished instructions, subject to no parliamentary control or approval but which governed the incomes of up to 5 million people. The change is, therefore, a major step towards open government, a major reinforcement for the rule of law, and a major social reform.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No. Many hon. Members wish to speak, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I do not want to take the House through all the regulations in detail. Overwhelmingly, they do no more than codify existing SBC policy. However, one set of regulations has aroused some interest in the press and in the House and it would be right to say a few words about them. I refer, of course, to the single payments regulations which are intended substantially to codify the existing policy—I stress "policy"—of the SBC relating to exceptional needs payments.
It is under those regulations that claimants will become entitled, as of right, to special help with, for instance, furniture and furnishings, removal expenses and other exceptional needs that arise from time to time. That is the area which has given rise to some of the greatest difficulties in the past and where we expect the most benefit to flow from the new structure in the future.
Contrary to what has been suggested in some quarters—I have had time only to skim through the paper of the Child Poverty Action Group—for many of the items, including, for example, bedding, payments will be given as of right provided that the criteria of the regulations are met.
There is, of course, in addition the fallback provision under regulation 30. Some have seen the terms of that regulation as a deliberate attempt to penalise claimants by making it much more difficult to get special help in the circumstances described. I must make clear that that is not the Government's intention. The fall-back power has to be looked at alongside the rest of the regulations, which, as I have said, provide an entitlement to help in the circumstances set out in the regulations.
Of course, if one is to substitute clear rules for unfettered discretion and at the same time retain a final fall-back discretionary power to catch the wholly exceptional case not covered by the regulations, that long-stop must be carefully circumscribed. Regulation 30 does that by providing that, in addition to the single payments provided for as of right in the rest of the regulations, discretionary payments may be made where serious damage


or serious risk to the health or safety of the claimant or any member of his family may be prevented.
That regulation is a long-stop. It is not intended to be the basis of widespread help. That help will be given either under the normal requirements provisions or under the main special payment regulations, which, as I have said, broadly seek to codify existing policy. For instance, consider clothing grants. The commission's policy in the past has been founded on the principle that claimants should provide for clothing out of the scale rates, except in special cases. Such a special case may be a child who has grown quickly and needs replacement clothing at more frequent intervals, but the general clothing requirement is to be met out of the scale rate.
What has happened in practice has been different. There has been great uneven-ness in the interpretation of the policy and the assessment of hardship in individual cases. The regulations seek to provide for a greater standardisation by codifying the policy and thus providing for what should have been happening over recent years. For instance, we have set out the particular exceptional cases, and the definition excludes normal wear and tear, normal outgrowing, and so on. It is to deal with the special cases, and I think the House will recognise that as sensible and fair.
The supplementary benefit regulations also implement a substantial simplification of the scheme. There will be three rates instead of five rates of benefit for children, with a levelling up of the rates to help families with children in certain age groups. There will be two rates of heating addition instead of three and, as the House knows, the increases in the heating additions are being substantially increased this winter. There will be only two main disregards—£4 for earnings and £4 for other income. There will be a much simpler capital disregard of £2,000. The long-term rates of benefit are being aligned with the national insurance long-term rates. All this represents a significant simplification, which will make for easier administration by the staff and easier understanding by the public.
The opportunity is also being taken to make some substantial improvements. The qualifying period for the long-term

rate will be reduced from two years to one year, greatly helping many lone parents and families whose breadwinners are disabled. We are introducing a tapered disregard on earnings for lone parents which will help those many single parents who wish to go out to work part time; and, as I have said, many families with children will gain from changes in the scale rates for children.
The Government are looking at a number of the other changes recommended in the review report. For instance, the report recommended that there should be a unified housing benefit in place of the very confusing mix of help through supplementary benefit and help from local authorities through rent and rate rebates. We have this under active study at present. If this reform can be achieved, as I hope it will, we might then be able to move on to some of the further simplifications recommended in "Social Assistance" which were dependent on the introduction of a unified housing benefit.
But those changes must be for the future. For the present, the regulations now before the House represent a substantial first step. They have been broadly welcomed by the present members of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and, I believe, by the wider public outside.

Mr. Russell Kerr: They would, would they not?

Mr, Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the members of the Commission are wholly independent, having been appointed by our predecessors in every case. Therefore, we can take some support from the fact that they have welcomed broadly what we are doing here.
In place of complexity, there will be simplification. In place of secrecy, there will be published rules. In place of discretion, there will be clear, legal entitlement. These are valuable reforms, and I commend them to the House.
It is not difficult for the House to list improvements in benefits which we should all like to see.

Mr. Clement Freud: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I am drawing my remarks to a close. Perhaps the hon. Member will be patient and seek to catch your eye,


Mr. Deputy Speaker, when he can make his point.
None of us would find it difficult to think of improvements in benefits that we should like to see, and in the course of this debate I am sure that there will be no lack of these from Opposition Members. They will make the point particularly at a time of rising unemployment. However, it is wrong to think that we can just spend our way out of recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting Government spending. I say in all candour that that option no longer exists. To the extent that it ever existed, it worked by injecting inflation into the economy.
The Labour Party recognises that those are not my words but those of the present Leader of the Opposition when he was trying to instruct his party in the realities of life as long ago as September 1976. Those words are as true today as they were when the right hon. Gentleman uttered them. Therefore, the Government put forward these proposals entirely in line with that view of public spending. We shall listen with great interest to Opposition Members. If they tell us that the benefits can be increased, I hope that they will also say how they should be paid for. Without that, their words are but empty rhetoric.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I remind the House that all 11 of the motions on social security may be discussed in this debate.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I can tell the Secretary of State that a Labour Government would not have cut benefits in the manner in which this Government have. We start from that basis. What the Secretary of State has just said about the orders and regulations and about the supplementary benefits review is a travesty of the facts. I shall deal with it in more detail later in my remarks.
The House has agreed to consider these orders and regulations together, and I think that it is in the interests of the House that we debate them throughout a full day rather than in the early hours of the morning, and that we have a chance to cover child benefit, the supplementary benefit regulations and the up-rating order. This is the first time that it has been done on this basis, but I

think that it is the most satisfactory way to proceed.
Obviously, I want to deal with the child benefit uprating regulations, the supplementary benefit regulations and the November uprating of benefits. This debate takes place against a background of rising unemployment and high inflation. Now is the time for the Government to restore the cuts made against the less well-off in our society. They should restore to them essential purchasing power, which will be used by them and will help the economy to expand.
The Secretary of State asked how we would pay for this. He made great play of the surplus in the national insurance fund, but when he quotes figures about previous surpluses I can tell him that benefits were never cut when we had a surplus.
The public find it inexcusable that benefits are being cut when national insurance contributions remain at the same level and there is a massive surplus in the national insurance fund. The irony is that when the Government push more people into supplementary benefit they affect the public sector borrowing requirement, whereas if we can use the national insurance fund the 5 per cent. cut will not reduce the PSBR because the cut will be balanced by national insurance contributions.
The Secretary of State should take on board the fact that we need not be in this position at the moment. No one here is talking about increasing benefits. We are talking about restoring benefits to the position that obtained before the Social Security (No. 1) and (No. 2) Bills.
I turn to the child benefit uprating. This is not really an uprating; it is a downrating. Child benefit has not been increased since April 1979. Between April and November 1979, prices rose by 11 per cent. Assuming another 16½ per cent. increase in prices in the 12½ months to 24 November, the total price increase since April 1979 will have been 29·3 per cent. Therefore, merely to restore the value of child benefit it would have to be increased to £5·20 per child. The rate proposed in these regulations therefore represents a cut of 45p, or nearly 9 per cent., in the real value of child benefit. I am sorry that some Conservative Members who talk a lot


about child benefit are not in the Chamber at the present time to put their point of view. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) is present.
The Government neglect of child benefit is particularly perverse in the light of their often-stated concern about work incentives. The Secretary of State's speech this afternoon amounted to love but no money. We got charity and sympathy but no money and no promise. There was a trailer in the Sunday newspapers yesterday about another possible increase in April next year. We got nothing from the Secretary of State. The Prime Minister stated on 1 May:
it is right to have a larger difference between those in work and those out of work".—[Official Report, 1 May 1980; Vol. 983, c. 1616.]
It is time that someone pointed out to the Prime Minister that child benefit is the most positive aid to the family and the most effective way of maintaining the work incentive about which she is so concerned. Those could almost be the words of the Secretary of State during his years in opposition, when he advocated the introduction and extension of child benefit.
The Secretary of State glossed over the problem of one-parent families. The child benefit premium for one-parent families was raised from £2 to £2·50 last November and is now going up to £3. At first sight, this appears to be an increase, but what does it mean in terms of total child benefit payable to the lone parent? If there is only one child in the family, the child benefit, including the premium, will rise from £6 to £7·75—barely enough, considering inflation. If there is more than one child, the lone parent will get less in real terms than in April 1979. For a two-child family, the benefit, including the premium, will have risen by 25 per cent., with a 29·3 per cent. increase in prices. For a three-child family, the benefit will have risen by only 23·2 per cent.—a cut of nearly 5 per cent. in real terms.
Millions have suffered and will suffer even more from the effects of Government policy that are not fully reflected in the price index. This is especially true for those just above the poverty line, the group for whom child benefit is most

important. They have lost their school meals. They have lost the daily free pint of milk that families with three young children got until last January. They are especially hard hit by the increase in the price of fuel and other necessities.
One priority that the Government should consider, especially in view of their previous pronouncements, is the immediate restoration of child benefit to its correct purchasing power in November this year. To do anything less is letting down the family within our society.
I wish to turn now to the supplementary benefit regulations. I am not satisfied with the gloss that the Secretary of State put on them. They are complicated and detailed. More have yet to be laid by the Government. On the Government's own admission, the regulations will leave about 2 million claimants worse off than would have been the case under the existing rules. There was no mention of that by the Secretary of State. The number of losers, including wives and children, is probably at least 2½ million. Against that figure, about 500,000 claimants will be better off, according to Government estimates.
The number of losers will, in fact, be much bigger. One reason is that the Government's figures do not include the two-weeks' postponement of uprating. The figures also do not take into account the loss of clothing grants and other special needs payments, so much restricted by these regulations. The Supplementary Benefits Commission made it clear that it was not possible to simplify the scheme without at the same time increasing the benefits to iron out the rough edges. The Government have not done that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and I wanted a simplified scheme but knew that we would have to pay for that scheme. We are getting a so-called simplified scheme at the expense of the lowest-paid claimants within society. Against the continued rise in unemployment, and particularly the extension of the number of long-term unemployed—the highest since the 1930s—there is no excuse for not immediately extending the long-term rate of benefit to the unemployed. That would be a positive and civilised approach to the 300,000 long-term unemployed—a figure that, unfortunately, is growing week by week. I


believe that the Government have a duty to take action.
The Government claim that the great virtue of the reformed supplementary benefits scheme is that everyone will have a clear legal right in place of the wide area of discretion that now exists. The regulations do not bear out that claim. Again and again, terms such as "reasonable", "appropriate" and "sufficient" are used. Under the present scheme, where words of this kind are used, the SBC can and does lay down detailed guidelines to ensure that they are interpreted with some degree of consistency. The Government are abolishing the SBC. The responsibility of interpreting the regulations will fall on individual benefit officers. How this will result in clearer rights for claimants is far from clear.
What is clear is that many of the payments that claimants can at present receive will be ruled out under the new regulations. The criteria for payment of clothing grants in regulation 27 of the single payment regulations are particularly restrictive. No one would argue that discretionary clothing grants are the right way to help the sick, the unemployed and the elderly. With the basic benefit rates at their present level it is not surprising that many claimants have to rely on these extra payments when major items of clothing have to be replaced.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If one goes back 10 years or more, to a time when the real value of ordinary, standard level supplementary benefits was much lower and far fewer special payments were made by way of clothing grants, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this pattern of special payments that has grown up over the years—

Mr. Field: What does that prove?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman was arguing that they needed it. I am saying that when one considers the supplementary benefit provisions of 10 or 15 years ago one sees that these things were paid for out of the normal allowances. One did not have the same amount. The policy of the Supplementary Benefits Commission has been to make these exceptional. They have not been exceptional. That is why the new regulations represent a considerable improvement.

Mr. Orme: Even the standards of people in these circumstances should rise and their demands for consideration should be taken into account. In government we were considering that there should be a regular six-monthly payment. This Government are restricting matters and not making the payment. That is where the cut comes. The Secretary of State should take account of the situation. A worrying aspect of the virtual abolition of the clothing grant is the failure to make transitional arrangements for areas where reliance on these grants is the greatest. These areas are found in parts of Scotland—Glasgow and other such areas.
This matter was raised during the Report stage of the No. 1 Bill, when the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), in reply to an Opposition amendment, said:
The new arrangements for the supplementary benefit scheme could not take effect overnight everywhere. Therefore, we shall be phasing the new arrangements in gradually, not just for the areas that have been mentioned in the debate. The main benefit of the gradual implementation will probably be felt most in areas where there is the greatest difficulty."—[Official Report, 19 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 537.]
On the strength of that assurance—one of the few positive concessions made during the passage of the Bill—the amendment was withdrawn. Yet there is nothing in the regulations about gradual implementation. Many organisations such as Age Concern and the Child Poverty Action Group have said that the biggest losers under the regulations will be the pensioners. I agree.
We are not able to deal with all the regulations in detail. They are going through Parliament at a pace. We do not have much time in which to discuss them, although certain issues must be raised.
Regulation 12 (2) (a), (b) and (c) and regulation 13 (2), (3) and (4) of the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1980 remove from benefit people who are involved in a trade dispute.
Let us consider the case of a wife who is working, perhaps part-time, and whose husband is sick or unemployed and in receipt of heating allowance. If the wife is involved in a strike but not necessarily on strike herself, the allowance will be stopped. Is that the way to act in a civilised society?
Under the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1980, regulation 6 (1) (a), (b) and (c), the same situation arises. Hidden away in the regulations is a vindictiveness against people who are involved in trade disputes. It is reprehensible.
The regulations replace many of the discretionary policies of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. We are told that the A code will be fully available under the regulations. Let us examine the cost. The six sets of regulations published so far are priced at £8. More are to come. Neither the claimants nor the thousands of people in advice centres will be able to afford them. That will be particularly true when the original regulations are added to by a stream of amending regulations. The cost will be excessive. It is not sufficient to tell claimants that they can obtain copies in an office. Such an office may be crowded and busy. Claimants often need assistance. What will the volunteers do when they have to find many pounds for copies of the regulations? I am talking not about administrative guidance vis-à-vis a new A code but about essential guidance for claimants.
When are we to be told about the appointment of the new advisory committee? Rumour has it that the Secretary of State is having difficulty in appointing a chairman.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hope to be able to make an announcement about the appointment of a chairman before the House rises at the end of next week.

Mr. Orme: That at least is an advance. I thank the Secretary of State for that information.
I turn to the question of the November upratings, which involve benefits for millions of pensioners, the sick, the unemployed, people suffering from industrial injury and people in receipt of invalidity benefit. For many there will be a 5 per cent. cut, at a time of rising unemployment and rising inflation. The cuts are an unfair tax on the poor. There is no guarantee that they will be restored once benefits are brought into tax. The uprating orders cannot be seen in isolation. If they are passed there will be nothing to stop the Government from making similar cuts in 1981–82. That

would represent a loss of about 14 per cent. in addition to the loss of earnings related supplement. The combined effect of the cuts for a man with average earnings who loses his job in January 1982 will be a loss of well over £20 a week. The cuts in invalidity benefit are particularly indefensible. Some of my hon. Friends will want to raise that issue.
The Government have admitted that nearly half the 850,000 invalidity pensioners have incomes below the tax threshold. I have seen the letter that the Prime Minister sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on the figures relating to invalidity pensioners. I do not know who wrote it, but it is difficult to understand and does not clarify the position. The Secretary of State obviously has had sight of the letter. Perhaps we can return to it later.
Even if the cuts are made good when invalidity benefit is taxed, there is no question of paying arrears. The Secretary of State speaks soft words to the invalidity pensioners. He says that he will probably put the matter right in 1982. What about 1980 and 1981? A single man or woman drawing invalidity benefit for the whole period from November 1980 to April 1983, assuming that proper taxation starts then, will lose about £185—and a married man will lose more.
Even more vicious than the 5 per cent. cuts in the adult benefit rates are the cuts in the children's rates. Taking into account both the national insurance additions for children and the child benefit, the total amount payable for the child of a sick or unemployed man will rise in November from £5·70 to £6. If the inflation rate is 16½ per cent., that means a cut of 65p in real value. That is not a 5 per cent. cut; it is one of 10 per cent. There is no excuse for that. There is not even the excuse that the benefits should be taxed, because Ministers have made it clear that they do not intend to tax the additions for children, just as child benefit itself is not taxed.
The Government are using a loophole in section 17 of the Child Benefit Act which provides that when child benefit is increased the national insurance additions for children may be reduced
to such extent as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate".


We often talked about equalising the rates. My word, we shall have equalisation this way. The rates will go down, not up.
If there is a shortfall this year, will the Government make it good? I have raised this point before and we have had a long explanation from the Secretary of State, as well as soft words from Lady Young in another place. We now need an authoritative statement from the Secretary of State, and I hope that we will hear it tonight.
Will the Government now put right the injustice—an injustice felt increasingly by millions of people—that was done when they moved the uprating date from 24 November to 10 November? That would restore the two weeks' increased benefit to which claimants are entitled. That a married couple should lose £12·30 over the two weeks is outrageous. Against that background there is the order that implements the Christmas bonus. Despite increasing inflation, that bonus remains at £10 and in no way compensates for the two weeks' benefit lost by millions of claimants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) said, taking away two weeks' benefit and giving people £10 in the following week will be seen as a cynical move by the Government. That is mean in the extreme.
For the reasons that I have stated the Opposition believe that the loss will affect the most needy in our society, who are being penalised in a disastrous manner. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1980. Our action takes into account other orders and aspects of other regulations to which we are opposed. We shall reflect our opposition to Government cuts across the board in our vote tonight. I urge all my hon. Friends to vote against the regulations and represent the millions of people in this country who deserve our help.

Mr. Paul Dean: This Session of Parliament has been a particularly significant one for the social security programme because we now have a Government with the courage to face reality and take difficult decisions. The reality is that expectations in the area of social security have been growing faster

than resources to meet them. Economic growth has not kept pace with the built-in growth factor in the social services. In addition to poor economic performance there has been a substantial growth in the proportion of retired people to the working population. There are growing demands on the social services and, unfortunately, the means to meet those demands are diminishing.
These unpleasant realities had to be faced sooner or later, and I give credit to the Government for facing them now. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made a characteristic and predictable speech containing much extravagent rhetoric. However, it did not contain any twinge of conscience. One would have thought, listening to the right hon. Gentleman, that he and his party bore no responsibility for the state of our economy and that the harsh realities now faced by social services Ministers had nothing to do with him and his record when he was in government. One would not have thought, listening to the right hon. Gentleman, that for more than 11 of the last 15 years Labour Governments had been in office.
There was no recognition in the right hon. Gentleman's speech of the drift and decline in our economic performance while he and his colleagues were responsible for our affairs. His speech would have been much more convincing had it contained a little humility and an acceptance of some of the responsibility for the position in which the country now finds itself.
The other characteristic aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a total disregard for the realities of the present situation. The social security programme now accounts for more than a quarter of our entire public expenditure. It is the biggest single item of public expenditure. That expenditure has been growing in recent years three times as fast as national output.

Mr. Ennals: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dean: I shall not give way for the moment. I am dealing with the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford. West.
These are the facts that no Government can afford to ignore. We have heard extravagant language on many


occasions, and we have heard it in this debate, about the undermining of the very foundations of the Welfare State. In the light of that language, we should look at the realities. We must look at total figures.
What are we talking about? In these instruments we are talking about a total expenditure of more than £15,000 million for this year and the savings and economies proposed by the Government amount to about £200 million. Extravagant language in the face of those figures seems to me to be wholly unwarranted.

Mr. Ennals: rose—

Mr. Dean: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
We hear a great deal of regret—and it was touched upon by the right hon. Member for Salford, West—expressed about the reduction in personal taxation. It is said that if that measure had not been implemented it would have been possible to continue with an untouched social security programme. But Opposition Members continually ignore the fact that one of the reasons why the economic performance of this country was so poor when they were in government was the high and increasing levels of personal taxation.
If we are to stand any chance of improving our social security programme for the future it is necessary for us to put the incentive back into wealth production in our nation. It is extremely regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman continues to show a disregard for the economic facts of life.

Mr. Ennals: Is the hon. Member suggesting that there is something disgraceful in a steady increase in social security benefits, bearing in mind the fact that people have been living longer and that unemployment is going up dramatically? Or is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should not have improved benefits for the disabled? What is the hon. Gentleman saying when he tells us, as we all know, that social security benefits have been going up? Is that not to be expected in a civilised State?

Mr. Dean: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have completely failed to grasp my point.

Mr. Ennals: I have failed to grasp it.

Mr. Dean: Under previous Conservative Governments—particularly during the 1950s—we had substantial real growth in our social security programme. That was possible because we had a substantial growth of economic resources to finance that programme. But increasingly, as time went on—particularly during that long period when we had Labour Governments—there was a progressive decline in the production of wealth in our nation. The result is that it has not been possible to meet the growing expectations which, rightly, our people have.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West and his party bear a great share of responsibility for the position in which we now find ourselves. The need for economies was inescapable. Any Government would have failed in their duty had they not made the necessary economies. Furthermore, had the Government failed to act now, the most vulnerable sections of our community would have suffered most.
Against that background, I believe that the Government have got the priorities broadly right. In these circumstances, it must be right to give the highest priority to those on long-term benefits and to those most in need. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has been able to assure the House that, on the best estimate that can now be made, those on long-term and supplementary benefits will have their benefits fully price protected on the basis of the 16½ per cent. increase contained in the regulations. It is entirely right that pensioners, widows, the disabled, single parents and those on supplementary benefits should have the highest priority.
Equally, there is the improved fuel allowance scheme, which will be of considerable benefit to a large number of people who are most in need of this additional assistance. However, if these long-term benefits are to continue being price protected, there clearly must be savings elsewhere, and where else can one look for savings but in short-term benefits, such as sickness and unemployment benefits and the earnings-related supplement? One of the savings that is being made relates to the taxation of these benefits. There has been no dispute on either side of the House for some time about the fact that these benefits should be brought


into the taxation system. The only thing that has been disputed is whether it is administratively possible. I am glad that this problem is now being tackled.
There is another reason why my right hon. Friend is right to look for savings in this area, certainly with regard to sickness benefit. Sick pay schemes on an ever-widening scale are now run by employers. As to unemployment, there are redundancy payments which help to fill the gap there. I am also glad that in making these savings my right hon. Friend has improved the safety net for the sick and the disabled, in that the long-term rate of supplementary benefit will in future start after one year instead of two years.
The surplus on the national insurance fund was mentioned by my right hon. Friend and by the right hon. Member for Salford, West. However, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman made too much of it. The fact is that the surplus, as revealed in the Government Actuary's report, is very small indeed in relation to total expenditure. I think that my right hon. Friend said that it was under 4½ per cent. One must take into account the uncertainties.
The Government Actuary's report, particularly this year, is full of the word "uncertainty". When talking about the surprising downturn in sickness benefit, he says that the reason "is not yet known". He goes on to talk about the graduated pension scheme and states that
a special degree of uncertainty
enters into any calculations here. The same applies to the assumptions which the Government instruct the Government Actuary to make. He says that it is exceedingly difficult to assess what the level of employment will be over the next year, and even more difficult to assess the level of earnings. Therefore, one must take the Government Actuary's reports with a great pinch of salt. I say that with no disrespect to the Government Actuary. I say it simply because there are so many subjective factors on which the calculations must be based.
As the Government Actuary has identified this surplus, I hope that that will make it easier for my right hon. Friend and the Government generally to deal with some of the raw edges that have been revealed as a result of the economies that are being made. I refer

first and foremost to the invalidity pension. I hope that it will be possible at a very early stage to bring the invalidity pension back into line with the retirement pension, and when I say "at an early stage" I mean before 1981.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment that, when the disability pension is brought into the tax system, it will be brought back into line with the retirement pension, subject to the availability of resources. We must bear in mind that that will not be until 1982. We must also bear in mind that a significant proportion of those receiving invalidity pension do not pay tax and are unlikely to pay tax in the future. This is a long-term benefit. It should be price protected along with the other long-term benefits. I very much hope that this small surplus on the national insurance fund, according to the Government Actuary's report, will enable the Government to make good the shortfall next year rather than in 1982.
I welcome the child benefit premium for one-parent families as well as the substantial increase in family income supplement. I welcome the fact that the maternity grant will shortly be non-contributory and will be payable to 60,000 mothers who at present do not qualify. These are all important steps forward in small but significant areas. However, yet again, I must express my disappointment that it has not been possible this year to increase child benefit by more than 75p.
There is little doubt that the Child Poverty Action Group and others particularly interested in these matters are right when they say that families with children have lost out this year compared with families without children. I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said. He said that it was the Government's intention to uprate child benefit each year and to retain its value. That is welcome as far as it goes, but I hope that the shortfall, which is evident and well documented this year, will also be made up next year at the latest.
I agreed with the points made by the right hon. Member for Salford, West about the importance of child benefit to family support, but that benefit is also significant in dealing with the vicious effects of the poverty trap, the "Why work?" syndrome and other arguments of that kind, which I need not repeat.
because they are well known on both sides of the House.
My final point relates to the reformed supplementary benefit scheme. I welcome, as I am sure does the whole House, the intention of simplifying what has become a highly complex and involved system. I also welcome the clear, legal entitlement. But when I read the regulations I begin to wonder how much simpler the system will be for those who will benefit or are entitled to it and for those who will have to administer it. It is too early to pass judgment, and it is not a good test to pass judgment on the basis of regulations which, under the new arrangements, must be extremely complicated and detailed.
I hope that my right hon. Friend intends to produce a child's guide, an updated version of the supplementary benefit handbook. I see him nodding assent. It will be extremely important, not only for those who will have a new method of support but for those who will have to administer the scheme. I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he replies, will say when the new edition of the handbook will be available. I hope that it will be in good time so that there will be sufficient time to study it and to become familiar with it before the new arrangements come into operation.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend refer to the need for a unified housing benefit. There is no better single advance in the jungle of supplementary benefit support for housing, and local authority support through rent and rate rebates, than a unified housing benefit. That would be a great advance. I hope that the Government will give high priority to bringing that about.
As the new arrangements unfold, I hope that the Government will pay a great deal of attention to the fears and misgivings that have been expressed by Age Concern, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Association of Directors of Social Services—to mention only a few—about the effect that they fear the new arrangements may have on single payments and maintenance arrears. That is another area that we need to watch carefully to see how the new arrangements work.
Nobody on either side of the House likes the idea of economies being made

in the social security programme. The Government are right to face the realities, to allocate their priorities and to ensure that the highest priority is given to those in greatest need, namely, those on long-term benefits. I hope that it will not be long before the economy begins to respond to the Government's economic policies.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When?

Mr. Dean: We shall then be in a better position to resume the forward march of the social security programme and to fulfil all our expectations which, unhappily, cannot be fulfilled at one time.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I have one specific purpose, and one specific duty, in intervening in the debate, which I shall do briefly. The House has before it no fewer than 11 instruments, seven of which are subject to the affirmative procedure and will take effect as the result of a decision of the House. The other four are subject to the negative procedure, and it is against one of those that, so we have been told, a Division will take place at 10 o'clock.
Surely no hon. Member doubts—and it is certainly in no way the intention of the Government to provide otherwise—that everything in the instruments should apply absolutely uniformly to all parts of the United Kingdom. Whatever may be the differences in standards and costs of living between London and the provinces or between the different parts of the United Kingdom, it is the intention—and everybody knows it—that what is laid down in the 11 instruments shall apply uniformly throughout the country. Nevertheless, the instruments do not apply to my constituents. They do not apply to Northern Ireland at all; and if I or any other hon. Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency, in taking part in the debate, were to seek to strengthen or support our argument by reference to circumstances in our constituencies, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be obliged to rule us out of order as speaking outside the scope of the debate.
Naturally, corresponding regulations, having the force of law in that remaining part of the United Kingdom, will be made in due course; but those corresponding to


the seven instruments subject to affirmative procedure will be subject, so far as they apply to Northern Ireland, only to negative procedure, so that the chance of their being debated will anyhow, in all human probability, be narrow and remote. Furthermore, those corresponding to the four instruments subject to negative procedure here today will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure at all, so that no comment whatever will be possible in this forum, from the point of view of that one part of the United Kingdom.
The simple contentions that I wish to put on the record this afternoon are these. It is unacceptable that the application to different parts of the kingdom of law that is uniform, is intended to be uniform, and in principle ought to be uniform, should be subject to different forms of procedure which afford differing opportunities to hon. Members according to the part of the United Kingdom to which they apply. That is my first contention. My second is that it is absurd for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make what it knows is United Kingdom law in two separate ways, by first passing Great Britain legislation—all the statutes under which these instruments have been made are Great Britain statutes—and then, secondly, assenting in various ways to Orders in Council and other orders applying to Northern Ireland.
Of course, we understand how we have come to be in that position. The legislature in Northern Ireland having been suspended in 1972 and abolished in 1973, the fiction has since been maintained that one day, and very soon, there will again be a separate—I hardly dare say subordinate—legislature which will concern itself with those matters. I leave on one side the irony that, even when there was such a legislature, one of the principles it never broke was always to legislate pari passu on these matters with whatever was done by this House. Leaving that aside, however, it is unrealistic for the House to continue to act on the assumption that there will presently be established in one part of the United Kingdom a legislature that will take over these tasks.
I am not seeking to introduce a constitutional debate; for even suppose that the apparently obvious was to turn out to be mistaken, there would be no difficulty

whatsoever in a new legislature going on from where the law of the United Kingdom on those matters stood whenever it came into existence.
Meanwhile hon. Membrs who come to the House from one part of the United Kingdom are, in effect, being debarred from representing their constituents on vital and human matters in the same way as all other hon. Members can do so. In putting that on the record, I am appealing to one of the characteristics of the House, namely, its sense of fairness between one Member and another, between one part of the country and another. I believe that more and more hon. Members, and more and more members of the Government and of the alternative Government, are coming to the view that it is intolerable for us to continue very much longer legislating for the United Kingdom, not in the proper manner—by United Kingdom legislation—but in a way that results in the anomalies to which I have drawn attention.
In small matters and in great, the Province where I have the honour to represent a constituency places itself at the disposal of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It desires to remain, as it is, an integral part of the United Kingdom, and to accept all the implications and consequences of that. But one of the rights which is implicit in that status is to be legislated for in this House, in the same way as the House legislates for any other part of the Kingdom.
This is not a plea that I have made now for the first time. I fear it may not be quite the last time that my hon Friends and I will be heard making it. But this, in a matter which so intimately concerns the life of our constituents, was an opportunity, which it could not be within our duty to fail to take, of placing that plea upon the record.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: As one who heard the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) make precisely the same point last week at a late hour, I am sure that, if only for the convenience of hon. Members who represent constituencies elsewhere in the United Kingdom, what he said is extremely welcome, apart from the consideration of natural justice to which he referred. I know there is a great deal


of sympathy for his remarks on the Conservative Benches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has already traced the framework in which these discussions are taking place. On one small point, he let the Opposition off lightly. He said that when we and the country hear talk of the dismantling of the social services, it is worth remembering what sums we are talking about, and he estimated that the cost was £15 billion. In fact, it is £19·8 billion, according to the Government expenditure plans—that is more or less £20 billion.
It is hyperbole, therefore, to talk of dismantling the social services. Incidentally, £20 billion is about £1,000 per family in the whole of the United Kingdom. That is worth remembering, as is my hon. Friend's point that expenditure on social services has been rising about three times as fast as output.
Although some decisions that the Government have had to take have been difficult for them and for many of my hon. Friends—and, indeed, for Opposition Members—the message is coming across to the country that we simply cannot spend money where we wish unless we can return to the economic expansion that will enable us to pay for it.
I want to refer only to the orders relating to child benefit and the pensioners' bonus.
I do not want to rehearse the detailed arguments about child benefit, and the disappointment felt by many hon. Members on both sides about the shortfall in child benefit this year. Many of us felt that it should have been uprated by at least £1. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and other hon. Members made a strong case for it to go up by as much as £1·20 in the current year. The rise of only 75p has been a great disappointment to many hon. Members, not least because of the Government's commitment to tailor their social policies to helping families, particularly poor families, with children.
I welcome the Secretary of State's categorical statement today that at least from the baseline of £4·75—we shall not let him forget that there is a continuing shortfall—child benefit will continue to rise in line with other benefits. I hope

that I understood my right hon. Friend correctly.

Mr. Race: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that that commitment from the Government Front Bench—if it could be called a commitment—was attached to a statement that meeting the commitment would be subject to economic circumstances? That is an important qualification.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I was also here when that point was made. Perhaps I was listening to the debate rather more closely than the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend said that neither the present Government nor the previous Labour Government would ever make such a commitment in advance. All I wish to underline is that we have had a commitment today that from this baseline of £4·75—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman said that no party would make such a commitment, but does he agree that in other areas we have put it into the legislation? That is a much better commitment than the assurance of Ministers, who tend to come and go.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The point to establish clearly is that from a baseline of £4·75—we accept that there is a shortfall, which we shall not let the Government forget—child benefit will be uprated in line with other benefits. Although there may not be a statutory obligation on child benefit, there is on the other benefits to which my right hon. Friend referred.
Many hon. Members will recall—I hope that I shall not have cause to be embarrassed—what the Conservative Party said in opposition about the Christmas bonus. In the run-up to the general election, a Conservative Party press release said that the Christmas bonus, which had been worth £10 in 1973, was worth only £5 by the Christmas of 1978. We put a question mark over what it might be worth in 1984.

Mr. Donald Thompson: It was worth nothing in 1978. I do not think that the Labour Party queried that.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is almost correct. In two years—1975 and 1976 or 1976 and 1977—the previous Labour Government did not pay the Christmas bonus. It is well known that


the Labour Party dislikes the bonus. It has never liked it. I believe that it was for this reason that my right hon. Friend felt that the bonus should be written into legislation.

Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the previous Labour Government did not pay a bonus in those two years, nor did they resort to a 54-week year?

Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend has dealt with that point. One of those two weeks is accounted for by what I think is called natural slippage, and would have occurred, for technical reasons, whichever party had been in office. My right hon. Friend made it clear that the other week is accounted for by the need to save money. It is as simple as that. I do not think that the Government or any hon. Member should have to apologise for trying to save Government money in these difficult times, so I do not.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am amazed at the naivety of the hon. Gentleman. Surely it is obvious to anyone that the reason why payment has not been made for the two weeks—I have never heard of such a thing as a 54-week year—is that the money is used to pay the bonus. That is the whole point of it. That is how the Government get out of it.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to the debate and hopes that he will stay.

Mr. Heffer: Is it or is it not true?

Mr. Garel-Jones: That point has been well covered. One of those weeks was to save money. The other was due to natural slippage on technical points which would have occurred whichever party had been in office.
In opposition we made it clear that the value of the Christmas bonus had slipped from £10 to £5. We printed a list of the items from an old-age pensioner could have bought with his bonus in 1973 and in 1978. I shall not detain the House by reading it out. Suffice it to say that at Christmas 1973 there were 17 items on the list compared with seven at Christmas 1978.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if we intend to leave the bonus at £10, it

is probably better to scrap it altogether. It will be almost not worth collecting. At the present level of the retirement pension, many elderly people cannot put money aside to meet extra expenses over Christmas. If the Conservative Party goes into the next election proposing Christmas bonus of £10, Labour Members will hammer us hard.
I am slightly encouraged by a letter from the Under-Secretary of State in which she said:
the legislation we have put before Parliament provides that, in future years, the amount of the bonus may be increased having regard to the economic situation, the standard of living and other matters.
At least the door is open for the Government to make that increase before the next election.
I end on the same note as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). It is no use the Labour Party weeping crocodile tears. We all wish that we could spend more on the social services to help those in need, but the country, if not the Labour Party, has already realised that we can do so only if we produce the goods, and the wealth, to pay for it.

Mr. David Ennals: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) I give him credit for consistently supporting child benefit and, with some of his hon. Friends, leaning on the Government to be more reasonable and generous. His leaning has not had any effect, but I trust that he will go on leaning as the months go by.
I must put the record straight. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) arrived, intervened and, with great rapidity, left the Chamber. I assure his absent but ample figure that there were Christmas bonuses in 1977 and 1978.

Mr. Garel-Jones: But not in 1975 and 1976.

Mr. Ennals: There were two years when there were no Christmas bonuses—1975 and 1976. However, the Christmas bonus was restored in 1977 and 1978.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I took the decision as Secretary of State because I thought that it was the right thing to do.

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Ennals: I shall not give way.

Mr. Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Ennals: I shall not give way. I shall give way later. I simply recall—

Mr. Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Ennals: No, I shall not give way. I simply recall for the sake of history that there was a Christmas bonus in 1977 and 1978.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Ennals: I shall give way later when there is a serious point. I shall not give way now. Many of my hon. Friends want to make speeches and I want to make my speech.
I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) on one point. I do not find it satisfactory that we should be discussing 12—some have said 10, others have said 11, but I make it 12—statutory instruments in one debate, because many of them raise issues of fundamental importance. Many have a great deal of detail within them. Therefore, I find it unsatisfactory to have to debate them all at once and then to vote upon them.
In my view, this debate sets the scene for tomorrow's censure debate. The measures in these instruments are so crude, mean and damaging to the whole concept of a humane society that they would form grounds for a censure debate. During the general election we heard many fine words from the Tories about caring for the weakest in our society. Then we had two social security measures, neither of which was hinted at during the election, which knocked the nails in the coffin of the belief that the Tory Party was a caring party. Today is the funeral because we have to vote on the orders and regulations which follow from those two measures.
In what will be a short speech I want to touch briefly on the supplementary benefit and child benefit regulations and then make some comments on the national insurance fund and national insurance benefits.
As Secretary of State I recognised the growing complexity of the supplementary benefit system and set in hand the review that was carried out by officials. I wanted to create a simpler system for claimants and for the staff to administer. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) that the Government have come forward with regulations of frightening complexity. I hope with him that the simplicity will eventually come through in a way which can be understood by both claimants and those who have to administer the system.
Apart from that, there are some startling injustices. Time permits me to give only two or three examples centred on the discretion exercised by Supplementary Benefits Commission officers.
The Secretary of State referred to clothing. The review team recommended that, if discretionary grants were to be cut back, there should be a system of six-monthly grants for clothing and footwear. That meant that there would not be the discretion, but that the money would be available. It was an excellent proposal to ensure adequate clothing and to ease the administrative burden of decision making. But the Government have ruled out that part of the proposals on the ground of cost. I believe that that will hit hardest at young children, particularly the children of the unemployed whose benefits are being cut by other regulations.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. One is the codifying of the existing policy which is embodied in these regulations. The other is the more far-reaching, more sweeping reform recommended by the report to replace the existing policy for hardship payments on the ground which it had hitherto operated for long-term beneficiaries with a six-monthly payment on the lines that the right hon. Gentleman described. There are seen either as two alternative approaches or conceivably as successive approaches. If we can get housing and so forth out of the supplementary benefit, it may then be more reasonable to look to the far-reaching reform. In the meantime, no one envisaged these as being one on top of the other. The right hon. Gentleman may be confused. Certainly he is confusing the House.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful for that intervention. As it is, we are getting neither. We are getting neither a special six months grant, nor a higher level of benefit for those on supplementary benefit. The suggestion of simply making long-term benefits applicable only to those who have been on supplementary benefit for one year does not deal with the whole of the problem. However, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
There is another aspect of the reduction of discretionary powers to help out individual cases on which I want to touch—the negative discretion which is written into the regulations. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 9 (4). This allows a benefit officer to award a reasonable amount for board and lodging accommodation of
no more than suitable standard".
This negative form of wording leaves the benefit officer with enormous discretion to decide how much to award. It allows him to decide not how much more to award but how much less to award. It even allows the officer to pay a charge for accommodation which is of less than suitable standard. If this regulation is approved by the House tonight, because of the Government's ability to get this matter through, I hope that this point will be properly dealt with in the advice that is given to the officers concerned.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman say which CPAG brief he is reading from?

Mr. Ennals: It is Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 9 (4). I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will find it.
I move on to child benefit. Here we have an absolute failure to carry into effect policies advocated by the Secretary of State and his hapless Ministers when in opposition. For him, these must have been 15 months of depression and misery, as he had to swallow words that he had repeated over the years in the period leading up to the general election. I certainly exclude the Minister of State from this criticism, since I do not recall ever getting any support from him in the battle which was fought to ensure not

only that child benefit was properly established but that it was established at a satisfactory level. Certainly I am not saying that the Minister of State has had to swallow his words. However, the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary have certainly had to swallow their words.
The Secretary of State was not even a fair weather friend, but it was always to him that I had to turn for support. There were times when I was glad to see the Secretary of State battle when he was on the Opposition Benches for bringing in child benefit quickly. Then there was none of this phasing in year by year. It was "Bring it in quickly and at a high figure." But those days are past.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am trying to elicit a helpful point. Clearly Secretaries of State in both Governments have had difficulty in persuading their colleagues to do what on the face of it would be in line with the principles of both major parties—not only to bring in a child benefit or identical child tax credit scheme but to get them raised. Without wanting to break Cabinet confidentiality, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he, as an experienced Secretary of State, will try to explain to the rest of us what it is that acts on a Cabinet that makes them reluctant to do this? I am sure that getting a greater understanding of this matter will help those of us on both sides of the House who are trying to raise the political pressure as well as political understanding so that child benefit can be raised and kept up.

Mr. Ennals: I suppose that in about 25 years' time—I have forgotten exactly how long it is—I shall be able to be absolutely frank about it. But let me hazard an indication. There are Chancellors of the Exchequer and they have a responsibility. There are battles which sometimes Secretaries of State for Social Services and their colleagues are able to win. If my right hon. Friend the former Minister for Social Security, were not engaged in an even more important occupation than listening to me, he would agree that there were times when we feared that we would lose, and we won; there were other times when we lost. If the present Secretary of State has won any battles during his period as Secretary of State, I should


like to hear about them. Perhaps the Minister who winds up the debate will list some of the successes that the Secretary of State has had in Cabinet. I simply have not noticed them. A Shadow Secretary of State who has fought his principal battle on child benefit and then becomes the Secretary of State who leaves us with a period of 18 months without any increase, and then does it at a level which leaves child support lower than it has been for years, has proved himself to be a paper tiger. There have been big words but very small actions. The Secretary of State was saying at the time that if only he were at the Department all would be well and he would be able to get these things through. But I am afraid that it did not work.
The Secretary of State tried to keep it up. Even after the election was won, even up to the last Budget, he was talking about the last Budget as a family Budget, saying that there was no question of children falling behind. He must know that that was absolute nonsense. At every income level a two-child family gained less than a childless couple, and that applies especially to poor families. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the combined effect of the benefit changes and the abolition of the 25 per cent. tax band has been to exacerbate the poverty trap. Some have expressed gratitude that the right hon. Gentleman was showing such candour. In 1977 he said:
One is bound to ask what could be more absurd. What can one think of a tax system in which someone who is so poor that he is entitled to draw a means-tested benefit finds himself paying tax to contribute towards the cost of it."—[Official Report, 17 June 1977; Vol. 933, c. 786.]
In November the gap between the tax threshold, including child benefit, for a two-child family and the family income supplement eligibility limit will be £23·25 as compared with £17·60 a year earlier and £9·30 in 1978–79.
I give just two other examples. A couple with two children who claimed the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled would now be better off earning £55 a week than they would on £75. A couple with four children would be better off earning £55 than £95. The poverty gap, about which the right hon.
Gentleman made such a big issue when he was in opposition has been made wider as a result of both his actions and the actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget last May.
From these Benches we have expressed once again our anger at the Government's decision to slash the benefit entitlement of the elderly, the sick, the disabled, the unemployed, and those receiving industrial injury benefit, and especially our anger at the 5 per cent. cut below the estimated inflation rate. Whether the estimated inflation rate proves to be right or wrong, the right hon. Gentleman knows that he is hitting at people who would not have been hit by a tax system for which he claims this is a substitute. I say again that I do not think that the recipients know what will happen in November. I think that it will be only in November that they realise just what the Government are up to.
I do not know whether the end figure will prove to be 16½ per cent., but I do know that recipients will have passed through a year in which the inflation rate has stood at more than 20 per cent. for many months, and that they will receive an increase of only 11½ per cent. It has already been said that it is all right for the rich. Of course it is. It is not the rich who will be hit by the regulations.
We now know that the Government's squalid, penny-pinching, "undeserving poor" approach was unnecessary. The Secretary of State spoke about the surplus in the national insurance fund. He told us that the figure for this financial year would be about £687 million more than the Government forecast. That is just a small estimating error. It is only 15 times the amount estimated by the Government Actuary.
I do not wish to be personal, but I have thought less and less of the Secretary of State since he took office. However, I have always given him credit for getting his figures right, as a hardened Treasury Minister. Even that mask has now slipped. He said that it was the Government Actuary, not he, who made the prophecies. However, he took the decision, and that decision was no doubt made with Cabinet approval. He consciously decided to increase the contributions of the working population by 0·25


per cent. That contributed to the inflation rate. He took that decision. He cannot say that the Government Actuary told him to take it. He took it, and that was one of the factors that contributed to inflation. Why did he do it? I hope that the Minister will explain why his boss, the Secretary of State, decided to push up inflation by increasing the national insurance contribution by 0·25 per cent. I asked that question in an intervention. The Secretary of State said quite a bit, but he did not touch on that point.
How can the Secretary of State tell those who have paid the extra national insurance contribution that they have retrospectively lost their right to earnings-related supplement? How could he have had the temerity to increase the level of contributions? People found that their contributions had increased, and then the Secretary of State told them that he would take away their entitlement.
We shall vote on this issue tonight. What conceivable justification can the Secretary of State give to the House, the nation and particularly to those on unemployment benefit, invalidity benefit, sickness benefit, and industrial injury benefit for cutting their benefits by about £206 million in 1980–81? He has raised three times that amount by means of higher national insurance payments. What will he do with the money? How will he spend that surplus? I accept that the previous Labour Government showed a surplus in some years, but that occurred when benefits were increasing; it did not occur when benefits were being cut.
It is not as if the Secretary of State can use his national insurance fund for some other purpose. He cannot use it to pay for the National Health Service, although it would be nice if he could. However, he can use it for national insurance. He has chosen this moment to take away the rights of those who benefit from national insurance. I hope that the Minister will answer some of those questions. Who will reap the benefit of the massive extra sum that the Secretary of State has at his disposal?

Mr. John Wells: I want to take up only one of the points made by the right hon. Member for Norwich,

North (Mr. Ennals)—namely, his complaint about the complexity of the regulations. I do not normally attend debates on pensions—the regulations are always far too complicated for a simple chap like me, and I am frightened off—but I deal with real people, not Government Actuaries and so on. Those real people are my constituents. Because of the complexity of the regulations and of the present situation, the Department of Health and Social Security has got lamentably behind with its correspondence. When it deals with correspondence, it does so in a cavalier manner.
I wish to raise two specific cases. The first concerns a Mrs. Kilby, who wrote some time ago to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North. I am sorry to say that he—perhaps correctly—did nothing about her letter. She was not his constituent, and it appears that he ignored the letter completely. She then wrote—

Mr. Ennals: As she was the hon. Gentleman's constituent, it would have been wrong for me to deal with it.

Mr. Wells: The right hon. Gentleman did not send the letter to me.

Mr. Field: How does the hon. Gentleman know that my right hon. Friend received the letter?

Mr. Wells: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would mind his own business.

Mr. Field: This is the business of the House.

Mr. Wells: It is a convention of the House that right hon. and hon. Members pass letters on to those concerned. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) should stop saying things from a sedentary position, and should mind his manners. The hon. Gentleman has no manners, and the sooner he gets some the better. I was discussing his right hon. Friend's normal courteous conduct. I am sure that he did not send the letter to me, because I did not get it. However, I do not wish to waste time on this subject.

Mr. Ennals: Since the hon. Gentleman has taken my name in vain, I must point out that it is a tradition of the House that hon. Members do not deal with the problems of constituents of other hon. Members. Hundreds of people have


written to me since I ceased to be Secretary of State, and I follow two practices. Sometimes I send a letter directly to the hon. Member concerned. Sometimes I send a letter to the Department. [Interruption.] I may have sent Mrs. Kilby's letter to the Department, but I never sit on any correspondence.

Mr. Wells: I was not complaining about the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether this is a private row or whether I may be allowed to join in. Hon. Members should allow the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) to continue.

Mr. Wells: Mrs. Kilby then wrote to the present Leader of the Opposition. Unlike his right hon. Friend, he sent me her letter. In due course I sent it on to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I drew my hon. Friend's attention to the urgency of the matter and received the usual acknowledgment. I said that the matter was urgent as it might have already been in the hands of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North and that it was definitely in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition. I wanted to see some action fairly smartly, because there had been a considerable delay.
We are about to begin the Summer Recess, but I have still not received a proper reply. That is disgraceful, because Mrs. Kilby's case raises fundamental matters of principle. She is a widowed lady on an invalidity pension and on supplementary benefit. Because of financial need, she has taken in a lodger. The gentleman is getting a divorce, and the weight of the cohabitation rule has swung into action. It is important for the Department to ensure that local officers have an exact definition of cohabitation.
I pay great tribute to my local office, which is staffed by superb people doing a difficult job in difficult circumstances. I am not knocking them in any way. However, they refer difficult cases to some great grandee somewhere in the Department, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will administer a bit of a kick to this grandee, whoever he may be.
My second case concerns a lady whom I shall call Mrs. C, for reasons which will become obvious. At the age of 15 or

16, Mrs. C was unfortunate enough—this occurred many years ago—to produce an illegitimate baby. Society being what it was then, Mrs. C was unfortunate enough to be committed to a mental institution—because she had produced an illegitimate baby, and for no other reason. She has never been in need of mental treatment and has never had any. She has now lived her entire life in mental institutions. For more than half a century she has been used as slave labour by the Department of Health and Social Security and its predecessors which ran mental institutions. She is now of pensionable age, but she received no pension because she never stamped a card.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had the impertinence to write to me saying that Mrs. C had worked in the laundry, which was thought to be therapeutic. I have never heard such rubbish in my life. I took this case up many months ago. The illegitimate daughter concerned, now a lady in late middle age, lives in Hornsey, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. Both he and I have written to the Department and pressed the urgency of this matter. All we have had is one curt, absurd answer and some brushing off by the Secretary of State, when nobbled in the Lobby. I do not expect Ministers to know all about the Mrs. Cs of this world, but the fact remains that this poor lady has no home, no rights, no pension, nothing. She has been put upon by the system for more than half a century.
I believe that she should be paid a pension as of right. The only way it can be paid, I understand, since she has never stamped a card, is through the discretionary powers that we are discussing tonight. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this second specific case with speed and sympathy, and I hope that there will be no further brush-offs.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I hope that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) gets a satisfactory reply to the important issues that he has raised.
The House will not be surprised to hear that I wish to raise the problem of the maternity allowance, in view of the long fight that I have had to improve perinatal care in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East


(Mrs. Short) and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides who served on the Select Committee will realise that one of our major recommendations to prevent perinatal death and handicap was to raise the level of the maternity allowance. I shall not go into the question of the £687 million, and whether it is fictitious, an arithmetical error, or whatever. The figure that we are now discussing is £25 million, which would dramatically alter the perinatal death and handicap scene in this country.
Tonight we are dealing with a statutory instrument which effectively cuts the maternity allowance by 5 per cent. when what is needed is a substantial increase. I will not bait the Secretary of State, because he and I shared a platform in the campaign run by the Spastics Society called "Save the Baby". The need has been clearly identified and a method of saving babies has been shown, yet the statutory instrument that will be passed tonight does something that is opposite to what is required. I urge the Secretary of State to consider regulations, or legislation to reverse this position.
In case some hon. Member claims that we do not have time for that, I must point out that some of us have been in the House long enough to know that we have had First and Second Readings, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading in this House and the same in another place all in the space of 25 hours.
The Select Committee has clearly identified a need and obviously a small sum of money would right this wrong. That money would be recovered very quickly. I do not believe that 90p a week for a pregnant woman is what is required to balance the Budget. I just do not believe it.
The second point arising from the statutory instrument is the question of notional resources. Here, Big Brother is really rearing his ugly head. If one is a pensioner on supplementary benefit and one wants to cut the hedge belonging to the man next door, and one knows that that man can afford to have his hedge cut himself, one must not cut it. One must not be a good neighbour. The notional resources regulation says that this is something that one must not do. I quote:
Where a person performs an unpaid service for another person who has the means

to pay for that service and for which in the ordinary course he would pay, the amount calculated by reference to comparable employment and the means of the other person may be treated as if it were actually paid.
I never thought that I would see a Government dedicated to voluntary effort producing regulations of this kind. It is an absolute disgrace. We have also been told that once the legislation has gone through, matters will be clarified and cleared up in order that people may understand what is happening.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The rule is exactly the same as that which the Supplementary Benefits Commission has operated under Governments for many years. There is no difference at all. One must have a regulation of this sort to stop people being treated incorrectly. The operative word in that regulation is "may". The supplementary benefit officer may make an application of resources in the circumstances that would be appropriate. To say that that regulation strikes at voluntarism is absurd. The hon. Member must not try the patience of the House in this way.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I accept only partly that stricture from the right hon. Gentleman. The regulation is evil and wicked, no matter who enacts it. I maintain that point. If my Government were wrong they must take the blame too. It would not be the first time I had stuck out my neck and opposed my Government. The regulation was wrong then and it is wrong now. The regulation has been rewritten and there are implications behind it. My next point will be to give an illustration of how the Government have muddied the waters. Here the waters have been cleared. It is crystal clear to any DHSS manager that he has an obligation to check both ways—on the giver of the service and on the recipient. It is a "1984" situation.
The regulations have been redrawn to clarify that situation. However, let us consider two categories of people who could benefit from allowances—a mother visiting a child who has been sick for a long time and needs assistance with her fares to the hospital, and the frail, elderly husband or wife who visits a sick spouse. The regulations have been redrawn in a supposed attempt to clarify the way in


which such people can claim a contribution to the expenses.
"Person A, who regularly visits another person, B, who is a patient in any hospital or similar institution where—

(a) A and B are not members of the same assessment unit but—

(i) were members of the same household prior to the hospitalisation of B; or
(ii) are close relatives;

(b) either—

(i) A and B are partners, or
(ii) R is a dependant of a relevant person who is either B or B's partner, and B has been a patient for a continuous period of not more than eight weeks",


and so on. That is supposed to make it possible for the frail and elderly to realise what their rights are when visiting someone in hospital. It is topsy-turvy language. The position is clarified to enable those with a Big Brother mentality to punish people giving a service, but the position of people who may be entitled to receive a benefit is made more confused.
The position over special needs payments has been made abundantly clear. Those in special need will receive one item of clothing. In the old days a supplementary benefits officer could consider exceptional need and issue vouchers or equipment accordingly. I have visited a National Health Service hospital for treatment for my feet. Notices are plastered all over the wall in the foot clinic enjoining people to make sure that their children have shoes that fit, because that is essential for their future well-being. If children do not have properly fitting shoes they may be lame for life. However, what if people are receiving supplementary benefit and their children need new shoes? Payments cannot be made to replace clothing or shoes worn out or outgrown in the normal way.
I beg both Ministers to reconsider those four unpleasant points.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The increase in pension for a single pensioner is £3·85, which is more than five times the increase in child allowance. That figure takes no account of the opportunities that people have to provide for their old age. We do not need to be reminded that children are forbidden to work.
Families who have children have a responsibility to look after them. However, we should consider how that burden can be distributed over a family's life cycle and shared throughout the community. I have previously explained how I see family finance transfer operating in a family's life cycle, rather than there being a transfer of money from the responsible child free to the irresponsible people who have children to provide for the future generation, who, one hopes, will be pushing us around in our wheelchairs.
It can be argued that inflationary increases in the cost of dependants should be met by the family and that it is the responsibility of parents to earn more to provide for their children, even in times of high inflation. Over the past 10, or even 15, years the trade unions have negotiated higher and higher pay awards and the lower paid families who cannot support their children become even worse off. They suffer more than those who do not have dependants. It can be argued that we are all capable of making arrangements for our old age and not relying on the State.
It can also be argued that child benefit should meet only one third of the cost of bringing up a child. Over the past 25 years child support has dropped by 30 per cent. in real terms, while the retirement pension and average earnings have increased by over 100 per cent. If one takes an index number in 1955 for pensions and child support as 100, child benefit is now 70 and retirement pension 210. In relative terms the old-age pension is three times the child benefit. That is the central fact.
It is difficult to consider the matter in the context of this instrument, and I therefore intervened during the discussion on the business motion to plead for consideration of the place of child benefit and the economic repercussions that are associated with increasing it to a realistic level. The House should consider the matter at length and in detail.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) is not present. He was not able to share with the House a non-attributable briefing on the problems in the Cabinet room! It is clear that child benefit needs to be increased now and for the future. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said


about the Government's intention to make sure that child benefit keeps up with inflation. We too often forget the battles fought in the Cabinet and in Committee and with the Treasury, when pursuing an interest of special interest. The Blue Book—the White Paper—states specifically that it is assuming no further increase as a working assumption on the estimates of the cost of child benefit. That is not necessarily a demonstration of the Government's intention. However, it demonstrates that at the time of the Budget there was no automatic suggestion from the Treasury that child benefit would be increased in 1981. The Government have gone two steps further.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I could have added that the fact that the Government have made the commitment that I gave this afternoon means that in future the amount will appear under the child benefit heading in the expenditure projections, and how far we are able to match that or fall short of it depends upon the economic situation.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that both the tone and the mode of my remarks demonstrate how glad I am that he and his colleagues have felt able to go as far as they have.
I am worried about the fact that neither the House nor the country understands the pressures or the alternatives. Under the previous Government we had the fiasco of high alumina cement in Washington, which, we understand, was a cover-up for a Treasury battle over the expense of child benefit, and that was followed by the Government saying" We would like to bring in child benefits for the first child early, but the lads of the Labour movement will not accept it".
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), with the help of the right hon. Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) and the then Conservative Opposition, managed to bring people together to achieve a phased introduction. It would not have been possible without strong action on the Government side to press the Administration to go further than they were willing to go when they were putting forward excuses.
We need to see whether those who quietly or secretly argue against increases

in child benefit are right. They must have arguments to support their case, but it is difficult to flush them out. At the same time, it is important that those who argue for a substantial increase in child benefit should be prepared to say what they are willing to give up.
If we are discussing transfers over a life cycle, I can point to three major examples of wasted tax allowances. In parentheses, although I understand the arguments for increasing child benefit, with other social security benefits, in November, it would be better if we managed to pull them into the April tax changes. I understand that there are administrative difficulties in doing that, and when the date of payment was moved to November the pass was almost sold.
We need to look for benefits for people when they need them, as broad a tax base as possible and relatively low marginal rates of tax for the broad mass of the community. Those are three good principles.
Let us consider the tax relief gained on housing by someone in my position. Let us suppose that I have a £7,000 mortgage on a £12,000 house and I change jobs two or three times, or the House ambushes the Government two or three times on Members' pay, or perhaps I become a Cabinet Minister—though I suspect that I shall have to wait longer than most for that—and I manage to reach an income that would justify a £25,000 mortgage. My tax relief would not only be three times higher, because of the size of the mortgage, but I would get relief at the higher rates of tax. Let us remember that one of the reasons for getting rid of the child tax allowances was to stop the rich getting greater benefits to help them support their children.
As we extend home ownership, we should try to achieve a housing finance system that costs less and is addressed more adequately to those who need help at the time they need it and we should consider whether it would not be better to distribute more resources for people's responsibilities to their children than for expensive houses.
With a higher proportion of wives and children being in families where both parents are at work, the additional tax allowance for a working wife, whether she works or not, is misdirected. It might have been appropriate 70 years ago when


few mothers were at work, but nowadays a higher proportion are at work, even when their children are young, and it would be better for us to refocus the narrowing of the tax base—by, I hope, using a tax credit or benefit system—to provide a home responsibility allowance, available to those who have to care for dependants at home and who are giving up the benefit of an additional income in the household.
The third allowance that I should like to consider is the general tax allowance. I have never seen the virtue of having a substantial personal tax allowance that remains the same whatever the level of income. I wish to refer to the tax credit proposals put forward eight or nine years ago—

Mr. Freud: By the Liberals.

Mr. Bottomley: By the Liberals or by the liberals in the Conservative Party, one of whom—my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams)—is in the Chamber.
We need to look at wasted tax allowances in all the personal allowances. I have been forward in airing views that would probably have me thrown out of a Conservative Cabinet, but I believe that it is the responsibility of those in my position to argue where the money for an increase in child benefit should come from. I delight in the increase in the old-age pension to well over twice the level of 25 years ago. The same considerations apply to the support for children.
We should be able to expect much more of parents if we made sure that the upbringing of their children was more independent of the economic circumstances of their families. If we are trying to invest in future generations that are likely to do more, and to do it better, than we have done, we need to ensure that those who are responsible for their care can look after them adequately.
Unless we can get it across to the Government that there are many on both sides of the House who are willing to look at the issues, such as the cost of increasing child benefit substantially over a period of years, we shall not be able to move forward. We must persuade the Government to explain to us what they see as the drawbacks of an increase in the benefit and to join us in examining

what areas of public expenditure or reductions in the tax base might be sacrificed in order to achieve a higher increase in the benefit.
Two or three days before the Budget, The Times kindly published an article in which I tried to put forward a benign, incomes-policy model of the economy. I also tried to focus on the resulting savings to the public sector borrowing requirement, which is a floating and rather small margin between large totals of public spending and public income, similar to the perceived surplus in the national insurance fund.
We have a choice between carrying on as we are, with pay settlements at a high level of between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent., and getting the general level of pay settlements over the next two or three years down to between nil and 5 per cent. or between 3 and 10 per cent.
If we are to achieve such a reduction, most of us will be worse off in the next year or so. In those circumstances, those who cannot look after themselves—the elderly, the sick and children—will need protection. We have managed to price-protect the State retirement pension, though we have not managed similarly to protect pensioners' savings. We have managed to continue spending on the NHS the levels laid down by the previous Government. That is a welcome achievement. However, we have failed to do enough to look after dependants and children.
If we are to reduce the general level of settlements, we have to protect those looking after children from the ravages of price increases and recognise that there will be massive savings to the Government in bringing down the rate of inflation. If the achievement of the Government's target of reducing the rate of inflation requires help from most working people, in agreeing to pay settlements which, on the face of it, make them worse off than an increase in line with the current rate of inflation, how are we to enlist their help?
One of the ways in which we can do it is to say that child benefit will go up not at the rate of inflation, which is what the Government have indicated they hope to achieve, but by, say, 15 per cent. during the first year that the level of inflation is lower than 10 per cent. If the Treasury


works out on its computer model of the economy what are the net savings to public expenditure of getting a level of inflation lower than 10 per cent. one year early—a minor suggestion of a small acceleration in the reduction of inflation—it will find that the cost is substantially lower than the additional 5 per cent. increase in child benefit. The advantage is that the 13 million parents of our children, probably two-thirds of whom are at work, will be arguing that it is in their own interests during the time that they are looking after their children to bring down the rate of inflation.
It seems to me that we need to take a comprehensive look at the significance of child benefit, we need to bring into the open the arguments about its level, and we need to be willing to make other sacrifices to ensure that those already making sacrifices to bring up their children do not have to suffer more than the rest of us in years to come.

Mr. Clement Freud: I am grateful to the Chair for calling me immediately after the very reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) whose argument on child benefit my right hon. Friends and I have always supported and whose consistency on child benefit we have long admired. The same admiration cannot be extended to the Secretary of State. We admired the right hon. Gentleman when he was in opposition, but much of that admiration has been dissipated.
Last Saturday I was at Littleport Show where there was a stand where certain dignitaries took turns to put their heads through a hole and, for 25p, members of the public were allowed to throw wet sponges at them. The Secretary of State has sat through this debate without even the benefit of the 25p and without raising any money for charity, such as was raised at the fete last Saturday.
However, one could not help noticing that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely quick on his feet when hon. Members made points of which he disapproved—nor that he sat very still when a remarkably villainous case was brought to his attention. The strength of a debate such as this, however orderly it may be to raise such matters when we are discussing statutory instruments, is that it

permits hon. Members like the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) to raise a scandalous case that came to his attention in his constituency. We should all have greatly admired the Secretary of State or his Minister if there had been an instant promise to look into the case. They were not slow in saying that they would intervene in cases of which they disapproved—but their silence in this instance was absolute.
The one uplifting outcome for hon. Members in all parts of the House was that those who felt that there was little egalitarianism on the Government Benches will at least have noticed that the hon. Member for Maidstone and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi)—now Under-Secretary of State for Ireland—like us do not receive answers when they write letters to the Department of Health and Social Security. It is good to know that there is nothing against us and that it is simply tardiness on the part of an overburdened Department. Perhaps it is only fair to say that the sympathy of us all is extended to a Department that has so much work by virtue of all that is thrown at it.
There are a substantial number of issues that we are discussing in this debate. In order to save time, I shall go through them fairly quickly. We began with the Secretary of State talking about the Government Actuary. It is too simplistic to say from the Opposition Benches that the Government Actuary has got it wrong again because he said that the figure would be 35 whereas now it is 657. But it is only fair to say that the Government Actuary is no better and no worse than his brief. It is essential for the information given to the Government Actuary to be correct in order for him to get out the right figures at the other end.
What was talked about was the 2½ per cent. surplus for employers' contributions. I warn the Secretary of State, in case he is not aware of it, that the figures that the Government Actuary is working on currently were his Government's unemployment figures. They were for 1·6 million unemployed, to which were to be added 175,000 school leavers. It is only right that the House should bear in mind that, in view of the disparity between the information that was given in all faith to the Government Actuary and the figures that are announced from month


to month and that show that unemployment is very much more serious than had been expected and had been fed to the Government Actuary, he will get it wrong again and it will be wrong in the other direction.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The 1·6 million figure is the average for the whole year. Therefore, it is not necessarily right to look at the figures in the last few months of the year; it is the average for the whole year, However, it is clear that the figure that may ultimately emerge will be higher than that.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I may well quote that back at him, if he is still in his present office. It is the average figure, and the right hon. Gentleman's intervention would have had great substance if he had thought that the unemployment figure was on the way down. He knows, as we all do, that it is on the way up, and figures that go up can only start below. Here, for once, the Secretary of State is right. But the figure is going up, and the average will be very much more than the figure given to the Government Actuary.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: How much more?

Mr. Freud: It is enough when in opposition to say that the Government have got it wrong.
No one has welcomed sufficiently the proposals for family income supplement. The increase proposed is good, right and should be welcomed. However, when it comes to child benefit, I share the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. What is more, I feel a certain chagrin at the fact that when this House is asked to vote on whether Members' salaries should be index linked a majority of hon. Members vote in favour but that when it comes to child benefit being finked to some specific sum or to the current value of the pound a sufficient majority cannot be found to support it.
The proposal in respect of the Social Security (Benefit) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Amendment Regulations is acceptable. I am concerned about the single payments. I am also concerned quite specifically about

the difficulty that all people will have in understanding the language.
Any hon. Member who has tried to draft a Private Member's Bill will know that what at first appears a very simple issue has to be made extremely complicated. For example,
A person to whom paragraph applies is a person who … is aged 19".
That seems to be a very simple statement. But it does not stop there. The words are
who is aged 19, but less than 20".
This is not easy to explain. The sheer verbiage in every paragraph where it is necessary to qualify and quantify for this to remain within the law is essential when drafting any measure of this kind.
At the same time as a paper of this sort is published, the Department should distribute a guide for ordinary human beings. And it must not be distributed in the form of this pathetic piece of paper that one is asked to believe costs 75p, and the next £2.
As the House knows, I tried to get open government when I was fortunate enough to emerge in a high position for Private Member's Bills. Open government must not only let both sides know what are the rules but must allow both sides to have the rules either for nothing or for so small a sum that it will not be a hardship. I notice that there is no provision in the single payment regulations for the purchase of the rules whereby one knows whether or not one gets the payment. It would not have been a bad idea to allow DHSS supplementary benefit inspectors to have used their discretion if someone had said "I believe what you are doing is wrong. May I have £2 to buy this leaflet to find out whether I am entitled to the benefit?"
I, like, I think, most of my hon. Friends on the Liberal Benches, feel that there is something undignified about a Christmas bonus. Even a child taking a CSE in Father Christmas knows that if one gave a certain amount of talcum powder last year one gives a bit more this year. If there is to be a Christmas bonus, the spirit of Christmas, as well as the facts of the bonus, should be borne in mind. If the Government cannot afford a bonus, that is all well and good.
The Government, at least in some shape or form, have been honest enough


to say that this freak 54-week year, whereby pensioners are failing to get two weeks of the rise they expected, is occasioned by penury. We know what penury is like. If, however, there is to be a bonus, it should be a reasonable bonus and should take account of what was paid the previous year. I wonder whether enough thinking is given to the bonus. It costs money. Like so many presents, it is looked at askance and people say "Is that all we are getting?"
Has the Secretary of State considered that old-age pensioners and the State might be better served by allowing pensioners one return rail pass in the close season when the railways are not doing especially well? A friend or relative would be able to use the pass to visit a pensioner or the pensioner could use it for a return journey to visit someone he had not seen for some time.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemp-town): The hon. Gentleman's suggestion seems, on the face of it, to be reasonable, but does he, on reflection, agree that it would act unfairly on a significant number of very elderly pensioners who were unable to travel, particularly when linked with those elderly pensioners who have no friends or family? There are, I regret to say, a significant number of those pensioners.

Mr. Freud: That is a valid point. I do not think that perfect government exists. The strength of my contention, which I hope the Secretary of State will examine, is that the bonus in real terms would cost the country less money and would appear to be more generous than a fixed sum. I believe that the vast majority of people would enjoy the opportunity of giving someone the chance to visit them from a far distance. If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, a person is alone, some small pecuniary value might be attached to the rail ticket. My point was not to give the blueprint for a new form of Christmas bonus. I simply wondered, with British Rail doing as badly as it is, and the Department of Health and Social Security doing as disastrously as we know it is, whether these two losers might get together to afford the nation some winning combination that people would accept.
Most hon. Members have spoken of the "justice" of giving to the rich and

explaining to the poor why they should make sacrifices. I do not believe that any remarks made in the House, in Committee, back here, and no doubt in Committee again, when the Social Security (No. 3) Bill comes before us, will ever allow any of us to justify the enormous disparity between the tax handouts that were made to the rich and the pathetic contribution in overall terms, but realistic enough to them, by which the poor were asked to contribute towards the excesses of the right hon. Lady.
Finally, I welcome the open government nature of the instrument. I welcome also the fact that the mystery of the A code will no longer be with us. I congratulate the Secretary of State on allowing people, albeit for money, or by getting hon. Members or someone knowledgeable to investigate, to know what are the rules. For that small act, the Secretary of State has my approval.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I thought at the beginning of this debate that I would be listening to the speeches with a sense of déjà vu—like watching the action replay of the Olympic events. However, one would not of course dream of admitting that one was watching the Olympics. It was with gratification that one heard in the debate some notable contributions, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) and the barbed humour of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely and his party are lucky that they never taste the bitter realities of power, which would temper the best modulated and thought-out proposals for paying benefits to those least fortunate in our society. Their motto might possibly be "It is better to travel than to arrive". The arrival in power and the realities must be extremely difficult to contend with. It is with sincere sympathy—if I may say so without patronage—that I view what must have been some extremely difficult battles in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been engaged with his Treasury colleagues in a period extending back just over a year.
Hon. Members heard much rhetoric from the Opposition about how badly my right hon. Friend has done. I do not


think so. We have not been party to the battles that have taken place. It could be the case—I have reason to suspect that it is so—that he has done remarkably well in the circumstances. It must be difficult to be in charge of one of the largest spending Departments of State at a time of world recession with a Government and leader dedicated, whether the Opposition like it or not, to squeeze inflation out of the system in an economy with no growth. The Government are trying hard to put right 20 years of economic mismanagement by both parties, but our party must not fall into the easy trap whereby those in our society at the bottom of the pit, who complain the least, suffer the most, and those who cannot campaign, or find it difficult to campaign and lobby, get a raw deal.
In a speech that I shall try to keep within prescribed limits I should like to touch on child benefit, the problems of the disabled, and the much vaunted Christmas bonus. The child benefit issue has been well ventilated in the debate, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West. I regard the Government's record in that respect with sadness. Some of my hon. Friends, some other members of the Conservative Party, and some Opposition Members apparently believe that child benefit is some type of soup kitchen or begging bowl. Emphatically, that is not so.
Child benefit was taken out of the tax system by the Labour Government and given in cash to mothers so that they could have some direct help for their children. If it had been left in the tax system it would have been uprated along with other benefits. Taking it out of the tax system and paying it direct to mothers was one of the most constructive moves made by the previous Labour Administration. However, people forget the facts and intentions. Memories become dulled. Before one knows where one is people make statements such as "It is not up to the State to look after children; it is up to the parents." One of my constituents told me "People should not have children unless they can afford them." He said that he disagreed with the recent increase even though the sum is only 60 per cent. of what it should be. Such people believe that child benefit is a type of soup kitchen. It is

certainly not. It is only equitable to up-rate it, along with other allowances. It is a tax cut for the poor, by which the State can recognise the importance of the family. It should be uprated by £1·20 as soon as possible.
The problem is that when Governments do not face up to an obligation to pay the full amount of child benefit it is harder next time to catch up. There are many instances, not least the pay of Members of Parliament. Unless the Government face the problems the boomerang zooms back at an equally inconvenient moment for the economy, and the Government cannot do their duty. We must face our obligations. It serves the nation ill not to face the problems. The Government should take the thistle by the hand. I was not party to the battles and arguments round the Cabinet table but I believe that even at Cabinet level the nature of child benefit is misunderstood.
I welcome the increase in family income supplement, as I welcome any benefit increases at this difficult time. However, the Government have said that families have done as well as anybody because an 18¾ per cent. increase in child benefit over 19 months is equivalent to an 11 per cent. increase in the personal tax allowance. They say that families are better off than they would have been under the old system of family allowances and child tax allowances. On a close analysis, I do not believe that such arguments stand scrutiny. At every income level a two-child family gained less from the Budget than a childless couple—and the situation is worse at the bottom of the scale.
Child benefit premium is drawn by only 4 per cent. of working families. Lone parents with more than one child, who represent half of all lone parents, gain more from obtaining the value of child benefit than from a 50p increase in child benefit premium. Nevertheless, we must not look at a gift horse in the mouth. We welcome any uprating at this time.
I turn to the ubiquitous Christmas bonus, which comes bouncing back to all Governments whether they like it or not. I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely that the idea of a bonus is patronising. It is unsatisfactory. The Christmas bonus has become a political hot potato which both sides of the House


must face and about which we must speak frankly. It is as unseemly for us to abuse a Labour Government for not paying the £10 bonus as it is for them to abuse us for not increasing it. We would all be pleased if the problem faded away. The bonus was an interim and not-to-be-repeated measure, introduced by the Heath Government in 1972. It has now become part of political folklore. Now it is impossible for either party to do away with it.
It is no use trying to persuade British Rail to help to do away with the bonus, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely. It has now become so popular that it is impossible to abolish it. I should like the bonus to be built into the system as a right. A Christmas present from the Government is not the most satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. The bonus should be a right and it should be increased at the same time as pension entitlements. If it is left out of the system the bonus will be the victim of any Government. It will be treated like the death and maternity grants, which are totally ignored.
Next year the Government should consider extending the Christmas bonus to disabled people. There is no reason why they should be left out of the general Christmas bonhomie. At the risk of being misunderstood by pensioners in my constituency, I must say that I am fully in favour of pensioners receiving all the benefits possible. However, I think that the bonus should be built into the system. That would be to pensioners' benefit.
The whole House is anxious about the plight of the disabled. The most recent debate on the subject was on 12 June. A total of 1¼ million disabled people, many of them children, have done badly under our Government in the last 15 months. They have been asked to share an unfair burden in terms of the economic problems that face our society. They are in a bad way. I do not know how many disabled people are unemployed, because the statistics are not available to me. I suspect that a substantial proportion of the 1¼ million disabled people are unemployed and that they find that job opportunities are remote. The cuts from which they suffer are much vaunted.
In my constituency the regional health authority has cut speech therapy facilities

for mentally handicapped children. That is a tremendous blow for parents and children. Without speech, without the ability to communicate in however rudimentary a way, the development of the mentally handicapped is limited radically. Special teaching for mentally handicapped children has been limited and will be limited further as the service is cut to the bone.
The disabled are suffering from many other cuts in services throughout the country. The problems in my constituency are not unique. The local authority is doing all that it can to maintain services. Nevertheless, telephone services are being examined with a view to cuts, and house building programmes for the disabled are being cut back. The disabled suffered from the uprating of VAT on 18 June last year because invalidity benefit was increased only on 12 November. They suffered a financial disadvantage then.
Married couples are £2.10 worse off on the highest rates of invalidity benefit in the last six months. They are worse off in actual terms and they cannot see, at this moment, any light at the end of their peculiarly and particularly bleak tunnel.
We accept that currently there is no cash for Health Service expansion, but I would have hoped that the Government would consider overhauling the entire system of payments to the disabled. We must do that, and I earnestly press my right hon. and hon. Friends to that course. We must first find out precisely what the disabled want. More than anything else, they want not to be patronised. They wish for the chance to live as normal a life as is possible with their specific disabilities.
The present system of payments is uniquely complex. I believe that it is a total mess. The cost of purchasing copies of the Social Security Act and the six sets of regulations is £11. Not only is the legislation immensely obscure; it is horrifically expensive to buy for those who are interested in how it works. That means that not only is the legislation complex but most people on limited incomes cannot find out what it proposes, even if they can find their way throug its complexity. It would be useful in my hon. Friend could produce cheap editions of the Act for distribution to social security offices throughout the country. If they could not be


given away, copies should be purchased cheaply.
In a comprehensive study by The Economist intelligence unit, entitled "Whose Benefit?" our current payments to the disabled were called a
ragbag of provisions based on a variety of principles some of them relating to a bygone social order.
We must look at the whole system of financial benefits, or the lack of them, for the disabled. The system should be restructured to enable us to give a disability allowance that would grant independence to the disabled. I know that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), were he in the Chamber, would agree with that, as I understand that he is vice-chairman of the all-party group for the disabled.
The cost of disablement should be studied by the research group. Those costs are high and rising. The cost of leisure for the disabled is higher than for those who have normal mobility of limbs. The cost of clothing, housing, nursing and medical assistance, dietary needs and recreational facilities are higher for the disabled. We should seek to achieve a state where the disabled can live at ease with independence and without patronage in our society.
I know that it is not possible to achieve those things now, because our economy is in such a shaky state, but by the time the report has been produced, the work done and the facts assimilated, we can hope that the economy will be in a state that will enable it to fund such a scheme. We cannot go on ignoring the problems as we do at the moment.
It has been said that a report would raise the expectations of the disabled and that it would thus be unfair even to introduce one, because we would not be able to implement it. However, in our election manifesto we said that we would produce a report. We also said as much in "The Right Approach". The disabled are not stupid. They know the financial constraints under which we are currently suffering. Such a report would give us knowledge of the extent of the problem that we face in dealing with the disabled.
Without knowledge there can be no plan, and without planning we shall get

absolutely nowhere. No one deserves planning, and the benefits that would come from the implementation of planning, more than the disabled people in our society.

Miss Jo Richardson: Almost everyone who has spoken in the debate has referred to the complexities of the legislation, not least the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon).
Like other hon. Members, I was a member of both Standing Committees on the Social Security Bills, and I recall innumerable speeches from Conservative Members about the necessity of simplifying the system. The whole basis of the first Bill was the pretence of simplifying the system, thus making it easier to understand. Though I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud)—I am sorry he is not present at the moment—about the necessity for open government and getting rid of the A code, I wonder whether the Bill will get rid of that code. It may be that we shall need, in the interests of trying to understand the legislation, some guidance in order to interpret it.
We were, as I recall, after much pressure during the debate on the first Bill, promised the regulations by the end of May. The regulations did not appear. When one looks at the regulations, one can understand why they have arrived late. I find it difficult to understand how the Department of Health and Social Security has managed to cobble together regulations of such complexity even by the middle of July, let alone by May.
However, I think that it would have been much more honest if the Ministers concerned in Standing Committee had said, there and then, that presenting the regulations would be extremely difficult since they were not sure how they would come out. It has probably been a costly exercise in terms of departmental man or woman hours to produce the regulations. They have been devised in such a way as to make them, in some cases, almost gobbledegook.
I have read the regulations with great care, and I think that if I understand one-fifth of them I am lucky because they are drawn up in an extremely complicated style. Claimants, people who need a


heating addition, pensioners, or one-parent families will find it hard to pick their way through the regulations.
I was surprised, for example, in the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1980 to find continual reference—I had not read the interpretation at the time—to the phrase "assessment unit". I wondered what an assessment unit was. I had visions of a place where one went to be assessed. That was until I read the citation, which says:
'Assessment unit' means the claimant and any partner and dependant of the claimant; 
I find it strange that, suddenly, a claimant and his or her partner or dependant—a phrase which might have been repeated anyway—is turned into an "assessment unit". I take objection to that. It is a patronising, cynical and bureaucratic way of dealing with people. Further it is stated:
Claimant' has the meaning assigned to it in regulation 4 of these regulations; 
If one is a claimant, with or without a partner or dependant, how can one find out whether one is an assessment unit or a claimant under regulation 4? This system will cause endless trouble not only to the people who need to benefit under the provisions but also for the staff of the Department at local level who have to interpret the regulations.
We all know how easy it is for mistakes to occur under the present system. One such case came to my notice only the other week. An elderly lady whose husband had died had not got her widow's benefit from the correct date. I got in touch with the local manager, who speedily found that a file had been mislaid, and the matter was put right. Errors can occur, and, if pressure is put on the staff, they can be corrected.
However, that applies to the present system. How will the Department at local level manage with these new and horrendously complex regulations? Will the local staff participate in training courses or will they simply leaf through the regulations and draw their own interpretations? We have a right to know how such matters will be handled, because in many cases it is we as Members of Parliament, with constituents who are affected, who will be asked whether mistakes have occurred. We need to know how the staff will handle these matters.
Reference has already beeen made to the supplementary benefit handbook. I think that I saw the Minister for Social Security nod his head when he was asked whether there would be an updating of the supplementary benefit handbook. I am pleased to hear it, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that in his speech. I hope that he will tell us and, therefore, the rest of the country, when the new handbook will be available. It will be no good if these regulations, which will come into operation in a matter of weeks, are followed by months of delay. We shall all be in trouble then. Therefore, it is essential that the new handbook comes out as quickly as possible.
Will there be an ample supply of fairly simple, explanatory leaflets? Many hon. Members have referred to the cost of these regulations. No one in his wildest dreams can imagine that an ordinary claimant—say, a one-parent family such as a woman with a couple of children who goes out to work—will sweat her way to Her Majesty's Stationery Office and buy the regulations to discover her rights. She will want to be able to go into the local office and quickly and easily find out what her rights will be, as so much publicity has been given to the fact that the Social Security Act will simplify things for her.
I have heard that a leaflet is already out. There may be more than one. That has occurred even before we in Parliament have said "Yea" or "Nay" to these regulations. I was told that the claimant who saw the leaflet nearly fainted when she saw some of the constraints that will be put on what she will be able to claim.
I should like to refer to two points. Most hon. Members have tried to pick out one or two points rather than range over the whole gamut. I shall refrain from commenting in detail on the slippage of pensions, but I find it difficult to understand how a week can slip in this way. Presumably, if there is a particular date and it gets towards Friday, one can carry it over to the Monday. But the best and fairest thing to do is to make the operative date go backwards rather than forwards so that people gain a few pence rather than lose a few pence.
I have received a lot of letters from constituents who are pensioners, particularly in the last few weeks since the


news has begun to filter through, asking how this can be. Believe me, they will not understand that this is just a normal slippage. They will ask" What the hell is this? What kind of slippage is it that does me out of £12·30?".

Mr. William Hamilton: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend served on the Committee which dealt with this matter. However, the Under-Secretary of State herself said that it was a deliberate act of policy to save £125 million. I think that that was the figure she mentioned. Therefore, the Government have been very open on that matter.

Miss Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. It was the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) who talked about slippage. He also said, quite honestly—and the Government have admitted it—that the other week was intended to save money.

Mr. Freeson: Perhaps my hon. Friend, who was on the Committee, will recall that that was never an argument that was put by Ministers. The argument was always that they wanted to avoid this gradual slippage of the date. They never admitted openly that it was their intention to cut public expenditure by this means.

Miss Richardson: As I recall, it was in regard to the Social Security (No. 2) Act that Ministers admitted that this was designed to save public expenditure. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the slippage argument was used in relation to the first Bill, but the whole truth came out on the second Bill. My pensioner constituents are none too happy about bearing the extra brunt of losing two weeks—whether one is due to slippage and the other due to costs—at a time when inflation is at present running at just over 20 per cent. Who knows whether it will be down to 16½ per cent. by November? Those people were looking forward to a reasonable increase, but they have been hit in two ways.
That was not one of the two principal points that I wanted to make. I wanted to ask the Minister about the non-contributory invalidity pension, and especially about housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension, which is not mentioned in the regulations. The National Insurance

Advisory Committee reported to the Secretary of State on or about 8 June, and the Secretary of State published NIAC's report about a week ago. I am surprised that the Government did not take the plunge and try to do something about HNCIP in these regulations, because there would have been time for them to do so.
I shall not go into the NIAC report in detail because it would not be appropriate to do so, but it seems to me that NIAC is hedging its bets in both directions. For example, with the changing mood and attitude both on the part of women and towards women today, it sees a case for moving towards the abolition of the household duties test. I should have thought that there might have been a move on the part of the Government to acknowledge what NIAC was doing, particularly as the Secretary of State, when Shadow spokesman, was agitated at the Labour Government's handling of this question of married women and their non-contributory pensions. The Secretary of State called it "close to sharp practice". Therefore, I should have thought that he would have grasped with both hands any possibility of putting the matter right. Here he has a set of regulations with which to do it.
My second main point relates to the exceptional needs payment. I shall not go over the whole range of people who will be disadvantaged by the rigidity with which the regulations have been laid down. However, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say where the question of battered women falls within the regulations. Two of the regulations could cover people who are in that situation. Paragraph 27 of the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations refers to clothing and footwear. It states:
A payment for any item of clothing or footwear specified in column 1 of Schedule 2 shall be made where any member of the assessment unit"—
that is, the claimant and the dependant—
needs new or replacement clothing and—
(a) that need has arisen otherwise than by normal wear and tear, for example where the need has arisen because of—",
and it goes on to list
pregnancy … heavy wear and tear on clothing or footwear … the accidental loss of, damage to or destruction of an essential item of clothing or footwear … physical or mental illness or disability


necessitating the purchase of special clothing. Nowhere does it say what happens when a woman who has been beaten by her husband—and it is now fairly common practice—leaves home with her children, perhaps in the middle of the night, with nothing other than that in which she and her children stand up.
Such a woman goes to the nearest refuge and, under the present position, the welfare worker will take her to a social security office on the following day. Such offices have been generous in recognising the circumstances, realising that a woman cannot return home to collect her clothing because of the risk of further violence. The office gives her the exceptional needs payment to enable her to buy a change of clothing for herself and for her children. If she subsequently decides—and it is not always the case—that she wants to remain away from her husband, is eventually divorced from him, and sets up home, she does not necessarily have a claim on her clothing and the odd pieces of furniture and possessions that she left in the matrimonial home. Until now, that position has been coped with by the social security system. There is not a large number of people involved, but it is a factor that should be taken into account.
I have received letters from the National Women's Aid Federation and other refuges that know of my interest in the problem. They said that, because of the rigidity with which the regulations have been laid down, battered women—or even battered men if there are any—will find themselves in enormous difficulty where they were not in difficulty previously. I should be grateful if the Minister would make special reference to that point when he replies.
There is a get-out because the insurance officer has discretion. But that is not a good enough answer. In respect of clothing and furniture, the regulation states:
Where a claimant is entitled to a pension or allowance and he—

(a) claims a single payment for an exceptional need under any of the regulations in Parts II to VII, but fails to satisfy the conditions for that payment; or
(b) claims to have an exceptional need for which no provision for a single payment is made in any regulation in those Parts,


a single payment to meet that exceptional need shall be made in his case if, in the opinion

of a benefit officer, such a payment is the only means by which serious damage or serious risk to the health or safety of any member of the assessment unit may be prevented."
We are talking about only half of an assessment unit in this case. I do not know whether a benefit officer would consider that a woman who had left home because she had been subjected to domestic violence would come in either category.

Mr. Race: On the question of the benefit officer having discretion to allow an exceptional needs payment, is it not clear from the regulation that the words "the only means" give an opportunity for a benefit officer to refuse an exceptional needs payment on the ground that he believes that somebody else should be doing that job, for example, the local social services department? Is that not a recipe for bureaucratic passing of the buck between the DHSS local offices, the social services offices and many other offices?

Miss Richardson: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for pointing that out. Not only is it a recipe for passing the buck but, in the case that I am citing and about which I am especially concerned—although I am also concerned about other groups—the benefit officer may consider that the woman should be looked after by her husband. He would lean on her morally and mentally to return to her husband because he might think that the responsibility lay with him. We need to avoid that position, and that is why I raised the matter.
I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State will announce the name of the chairman of the new social security advisory committee before the House rises for the Summer Recess. I wish to underline what I said in Committee—and I think that I received some slight hint of an assurance from the Minister—that we must have some women members serving on the committee. The more that I consider the regulations, the more I realise how much they will concern many women claimants. It is important to have a female element of understanding—that is in no way knocking the male element of understanding—on that committee. I hope that we shall receive an assurance either later today, or when the Secretary of State makes his announcement, that he


will do the job properly and appoint several women to the committee.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemp-town): I am sure that the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) will understand that I cannot answer some of her detailed questions about the new regulations, but I shall refer later to at least some of the topics that she raised.
I was somewhat dismayed by the Chancellor's announcement in the Budget that there would be only a 16½ per cent. increase in the old-age pension in November. I was not convinced by his argument that that would be the year-on-year rate of inflation. According to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services this afternoon, there now appears to be a real chance—although, again, I am not wholly convinced—that the level of inflation will be about that figure in November, I hope that he is right, but what if he is wrong? The Government are under a moral obligation to act as promptly as possible to make up any shortfall in November, especially in the light of the Government's decision in the first Social Security Act 1980 to change the basis on which the pension is increased.
As the House knows, I strongly opposed that Act and voted against it on Second Reading. Its principal provision was that pensions should be increased only in line with inflation, and not take into account wages and other incomes. Previously, the pensioner could obtain the benefit of the better of the two scales of decision. If the pensioner faces a shortfall it is right—indeed, it is a moral obligation—that the Government should act before November 1981. I hope that that will not arise, but, if it does, the Government must find other methods to make up that shortfall early in 1981. That could be done with a spring bonus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) was open and frank with the House when he said that the Government's reason for fixing the payment date at 24 November this year was to save money. I feel deeply that this is not the way to save money. It is a real injustice to pensioners.
I know that the Government will not change their minds at this late stage,

but I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security to use all his influence with his colleagues to ensure that the increase in 1981 is not handled in the same way. I hope that he will be able to give the House tonight a clear and specific undertaking that the 1981 increase will start on 24 November 1981 and not in the first week of December.
In each of the last 15 to 20 years, financial pressures have built up on pensioners. Inflation has crucified the purchasing power of their savings. Many pensioners—particularly those on the borderline, and those receiving the basic State pension and a supplementary pension—have suffered badly in that period.
There is a great deal of bitterness among many millions of pensioners who saved all their lives, who were thrifty and hard-working. Many gave up holidays and other luxuries to ensure that when they retired they would have sufficient savings and capital to make them independent not only of their families but of the State over and above their entitlement to the State retirement pension. They have suffered out of all proportion.

Mr. Matthew Parris: My hon. Friend implies that the average pensioner today is worse off than the average pensioner 15 or 20 years ago. Is that what he believes?

Mr. Bowden: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that he has quite followed my argument. There is no question but that the State retirement pension now has much more purchasing power than it had 25 or 30 years ago—and, my goodness, so it should. Surely that it is what progress is all about—that each generation, we hope, will not only leave higher standards for its children but treat its retired people more generously.
The group of people to whom I was referring are those who built up savings over many years, who put something away week by week, month by month, year by year, perhaps during their entire working lives, and who saved enough to buy bungalows in Saltdean, Woodingdean or many other parts of the country. They knew that they would have the State pension as well, with its increasing purchasing power year by year, but, instead of having any real margin, they found that their rates went up and up and their fares


increased year by year; they ended up on a narrow margin, with little or no room to manoeuvre.
Some pensioners in my constituency are trapped in areas away from the centre of Brighton. They find it difficult not only to pay their rates but also to pay the bus fares into central Brighton. These pensioners planned their budgets on an inflation rate of probably 5 or 6 per cent. for the last 15 or 20 years of their working lives, whereas, for many of the years in which they have been retired, the inflation rate has been 20 or 25 per cent. When the Labour Party was in power, it reached the record rate of about 27½ per cent.
As a result, the savings of these people have been steadily whittled away. But they are not quite entitled to a supplementary pension because they have just a few pounds a week extra. That means that they are not entitled to many of the other benefits available to those on supplementary pensions. Many of them are worse off than those on supplementary pensions.
The pensioners in that group had a particularly hard time in the last 10 to 15 years, and they are bitter about it. They feel—sometimes wrongly—that those who have not bothered to save, who have not been thrifty, and who did not put something away, have had things easy, that, having spent everything they earned and frittered away their money, they now live on the backs of the rest of the community. That is not an entirely solid or sustainable argument, but it is understandable that these pensioners feel bitter.
Our 9 million pensioners comprise two groups—younger pensioners and elderly pensioners. Whatever the mistakes of the last 10 or 15 years, the blame falls on Governments, employers, trade unions and everyone in full-time employment. None of them can claim to be blameless. The one group of people who can honestly say that they are blameless must be the elderly pensioners, yet they are being asked to make significant sacrifices.
I argue for this group as strongly as I can. I have the honour of being joint chairman, with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) of the all-party group for pensioners. Our views are affected by those of other hon. Members in the group. There is a strong feeling

that elderly pensioners have not been given the support they should have considering their lack of responsibility for our present problems.
Additional help can be and has been given. There are concessions for pensioners. In principle, I heartily dislike special concessions. We have to fight hard to get concessions for today's pensioners which will give them some immediate extra help. Unfortunately, there has been considerable bitterness as a result of the various anomalies. The travel concessions are riddled with anomalies. In some parts of the country, pensioners receive generous concessions. In other areas, a pensioner living on one side of the street may receive considerable help while his dearest friend living on the other side of the street gets absolutely nothing. Such anomalies should be looked at and levelled out.
If concessions enabled pensioners to pay a special rate for television licences, there would be tremendous opportunities for abuse and many anomalies. It would be wrong for a pensioner who has been taken into the family home to be able to buy a specially cheap television licence which could then be used for the benefit of the rest of the family, in which there might be two or three wage earners.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that what upsets pensioners most is that there are already two rates of television licence fees for many people? Those who live in sheltered accommodation or old people's homes pay reduced rates. In fairness, would not the best thing be to give all pensioners the concessions of a free television licence?

Mr. Bowden: I should favour the total abolition of the television licence. It seems pointless having the bureacracy and cost of collecting the television licence fee when about 95 per cent. of people have access to television. There should be a simpler and easier way of doing it.
We must move more rapidly towards providing a living pension for all retired people so that they can exercise their right of choice. Whatever concessions we consider, some people will be unable to make use of it. I want them to have the money in their pockets so that they


can decide how to spend it in the same way as we have the right to decide how to decide how to spend our own disposable income without too much interference from the State.
We should accept that we have failed to meet our obligations to the nation's pensioners. We must resolve that in future the retired are not denied their fair share of our national resources.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: This has been a remarkable debate, in that so far hardly any speaker from the Government side has commended either the regulations or the Government's strategy. It is sad that, having so many speeches by Conservative Members critical of the Government, the Government have taken so little notice of them over the past few months. We have heard many eloquent pleas by Conservative Members for increases in child benefit and other improvements in benefits, but the Government seem to brush them aside.
One would have thought that the debate on these 11 instruments would be a good opportunity for the Government to examine and present their strategy for dealing with the unemployed, the weak, the sick, the disabled, the handicapped, the young and the old and for the Minister to set out the Government's aims and perhaps to promise a bit for the future, yet we did not get that kind of speech from the right hon. Gentleman. It was a continual thread of excuses explaining why this and that could not be done. There was very little hope in it. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was reluctant to make any promises in case he had to come back to the House with a social security Bill in the autumn to make further cuts. It seemed disappointing. Possibly it was because he wanted to continue to put forward the idea outside that the Government are blaming claimants for the country's problems and want them to make all the sacrifices to get the economy right.
Last Thursday the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that it was the fault of the unemployed that they were unemployed, because they would not move. That is the attitude portrayed by the

Government, whatever their Back Benchers may say. It is sad that we have had little or nothing from the Government regarding their ideal for making the regulations a little better as time goes on. It is bad enough for people to be unemployed and to go round week after week searching and pleading for work, but to have drummed into them that they are at fault and are to blame is appalling. Yet that is what the Government have done, and that is what the Prime Minister said. It is hard for people to be unemployed for a long period, to be on long-term unemployment rates, to see their children going short and not to be able to replace essential household equipment; but to be told that it is their fault, that they are to make the sacrifices when they know that many others are getting tax cuts, is appalling.
Again, it is hard for pensioners to find that for the rest of their lives they will have to live on supplementary benefit. There is no escape for pensioners. They have no chance of getting jobs or of increasing their earnings. They are stuck on supplementary benefit for the rest of their lives. They ask why, in the closing years of their lives, they should be asked to make the sacrifice when Ministers and others with similar incomes are making little or no sacrifice. Why should they suffer from the burden of putting the economy right? They find that appalling. They find the Government's policies and attitude harsh and critical of them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made it clear that the uprating order was really a down-rating order. It is a decrease, a sleight of hand, order. We should ask: what would have happened if the rules had been the same as they were last year? First, the increase would have come after 52 weeks, not 54 weeks. The benefits would have gone up this year in line with earnings or prices, whichever had gone up the most. It is clear that this autumn earnings will have gone up the most. Therefore, if last year's rules had been applied, the benefits would have gone up this autumn in line with earnings. Whatever we may say about the inflation rate for prices, over 54 weeks earnings are almost certain to have gone up by 18 or 19 per cent. The Government are cheating people in receipt of benefits out of an increase of 3 or 4 per cent.
The Secretary of State tried hard to justify the contention that the inflation rate for prices would be down to 16½ per cent., but can he say that over 54 weeks it will be down to 16½ per cent.? I doubt it. If he has confidence in his own argument, he should be able to give the House a categoric assurance that, if he has got it wrong, he will make good the shortfall. But he wants it both ways. He wants to claim that he has got it right, but he will not give an assurance about the shortfall. That is unfortunate.
We had many arguments in Committee about this matter. In my view, the increases in fuel costs this year will put an extra burden on people on low incomes—far more than is reflected in the average increase in prices. Again, that has not been taken into account. The uprating this autumn means that those in receipt of benefits will slip behind average earnings, and they will almost certainly slip behind prices as well.
In Committee the Minister claimed that the regulations were concerned with child support. We have seen what has happened to child benefit—a measly 75p. In Stockport, comparing what was paid out last autumn with what is to be paid out this autumn, those in work will find that school meals have gone up by 15p per meal, which means that the 75p is swallowed up in the increased charge for school meals. They will not see any benefits.
I think that most people accept that over the years they have had to take child benefit and the school meals charge as a rounded figure, rather than as separate figures. Taking account of school meals, the extra costs in the provision of books and the loss of other benefits that were provided through the school, the amount of support for the child at school has greatly diminished during the past 12 months.
If one looks at the problems of the children of the unemployed or the sick and the way in which their uprating has been fiddled, one sees that they get an increase from £5·70 to £6—an effective cut in real terms of 65p. The essential needs payments have a major effect on families with children. That again is another area of cuts. In these instruments the Government are disguising major cuts in the amount of support for children.
Many of my hon. Friends have pressed to know who will be on the Social Security Advisory Committee. We had a promise from the Minister that he would announce before the recess the name of the chairman. I hope that he will announce before the recess the names of the full committee. I hope, too, that we shall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) suggested, get a good cross-section of people on it, and people who will take a keen interest in these regulations right from the word "go".
A number of us in the House today have received many briefs from various outside organisations. The Minister asked for page references for the brief from the CPAG. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will give us an assurance that all the points raised in those briefs will receive a full reply. We cannot possibly go through them all in the House this evening, but there is nothing to stop the Minister from writing to those organisations or publishing in Hansard his reply to all the detailed points that they have put down.
I also hope that the Select Committee that is following the Department's activities will very soon undertake an inquiry into the whole question of the regulations, and will take evidence from all those interested groups and from the Department, so that we can put the regulations under far better scrutiny than can be done in a debate such as this, in which it seems that the regulations lend themselves to question and answer as to what has gone on in them. I hope that we shall get assurances from the Select Committee that it will look at the problem and that we shall get encouragement from the Government that the problems will be examined.
The major change that was proposed in the supplementary benefits was to get rid of the casual payments and to include them in the general rate, but all the arguments put forward for doing that suggested that a little more money had to be available. Unfortunately, of course, the Government chose to change the regulations, supposedly to simplify them, at nil cost. That means that some people may be levelled up, but an awful lot of people will be levelled down. We know that there will be 2 million claimants who will be worse off.
Then there is the whole question of the long-term unemployed. One of the major problems of the increase in unemployment is the number of people who are on benefit year after year. It seems appalling that one can never escape from the short-term rate, if one is unemployed, on to the long-term rates. In any package that the Government are thinking about for the unemployed, they must find a way of getting the long-term unemployed on to the long-term supplementary benefit rates. I know that they have brought down the qualifying period for other people, but they ought to do that now for the unemployed. They cannot claim that the unemployed who have been out of work for 12 months or more have a good opportunity at present of getting jobs.
Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the cost of the regulations—£8 for the set—and the whole question of when the supplementary benefits handbook will come out. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that handbook will be published by the end of August at the very latest, because it is of most value to those who have to give advice, and it is important that they have it in time to look at it before the new regulations come into operation.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: This is an important point. The regulations cost £8. I think that my hon. Friend will accept that one would need a copy of the Acts if one was to understand the regulations. One would pay, therefore, £11 for a set of the regulations and the Acts. Surely we must demand that a guidance book or an appendix to the supplementary benefits handbook in the form of notes of guidance is issued before the November upratings as well as the upratings themselves.

Mr. Bennett: I hope that the handbook will be available as a guide, and that leaflets will be available. I should have thought that one of the essential things was to make sure that in every benefit office there was a copy of the Act, a complete set of the regulations, and a copy of the handbook, for people to consult as of right and which people can ask to see. There are major problems of cost and availability. There should be a small library of reference books for any claimant to consult. The Minister will be surprised

to know that there are many staff in the offices who would also like the opportunity to see the original regulations, rather than some interpretation that is handed down to them.
I deal next with the way in which the essential needs payments for clothing are to be dealt with. In Committee we were told that this benefit would be phased out but that in those areas in which people had been accustomed to getting the benefits they would, at least for an interim period, be able to continue to get them. I believe that the Government ought to have accepted the advice that was given to them, and instead of getting rid of these payments for clothing they should have regularised them into a lump sum, which would be paid out every six months. That would have been one of the best ways of dealing with the matter. If the Government are not to do that, I hope that the Minister will tell us how those regulations will be phased in.
Several hon. Members have raised the question of people's capital and the way in which it will be treated. I am particularly concerned about this matter, since I have in my constituency several instances of families having broken up, where the wife has had to draw benefit, but at some point a house has been sold and that has realised a certain amount of capital. I know of several instances in which a wife has wanted to keep her capital so that when she can return to work—very often when the children have reached school age—she has some hope of buying a house with a mortgage. As I understand it, however, if she has capital of more than £2,000 from the sale of a house, she will not be eligible for benefit after an initial six-months period.
The Minister ought to tell us clearly how someone in those circumstances can get round this problem, because it seems reasonable that someone ought to be able to keep that money in order to set towards buying a house, just as if such people were living in their own houses they would be able to keep the capital tied up in them.
The other question is what will happen to maintenance payments that come in arrears. This is a major issue. Several of the documents that I have received as briefing have raised the question of how arrears of maintenance will be treated.
I hope that the Minister will give us some more information.
One of the few things of which the Secretary of State was proud was the fact that he was saying that it will all now be in the regulations for everyone to see. He would not give way to me, but I wanted to press him to make it clear that we shall not get a new A code, and that he will make it clear that the public are entitled to see not just the regulations and the Acts, and that side of it. but all the administrative documents and that they will not be shrouded in some secrecy. It is at this point that the Minister must say "Those are public documents and people can demand to see them". Although in most instances they will not be relevant and people will not need to see them, there should be no continuing secret A code on the part of the Government.
Another matter on which I should like to press the Minister is on what will happen about the costs of child day care. Under the new regulations, will the Government be prepared to meet the reasonable expenses of a child going to a preschool playgroup, or of someone minding children, particularly for single parents? The earnings rule has been eased a little, but that rule very much depends on the cost of child minding. I should like a little more information on how those things will interrelate.
Will the Minister also give a little more thought to the whole question of heating costs? They are clearly one of the areas in which inflation has hit people hardest this year. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to people whose costs are particularly high for one reason or another—either because there is a new baby in the household or because the nature of the dwelling in which they live results in high heating costs—how far these regulations will allow them more help with heating.
Again, the whole question of insulation does not seem clear in the regulations. I think that this is a simple energy-saving matter, a simple question of allowing people to use their benefits more effectively, and that the Government should make it clear that they will meet the cost incurred by people on benefits in insulating the hot water tanks and roof spaces in their dwellings.
Will the Minister also say whether it is true, as I read the regulations, that if, in future, someone has a local authority home help and the local authority imposes a charge, he will not be able to claim that back from supplementary benefit, but if he fixes up his own home help he may be able to claim back the costs in supplementary benefit. That seems to me to be an anomaly. I realise that the Government are reluctant to let local authorities push the cost back on to them. I hope that the Minister can tell us what the position is.
I have another instance of the yo-yoing of people between the Government and local authorities. I refer to housing. The regulations about special payments say that no payment may be made for
any repair to local authority property.
I assume that that covers council houses. There are many tenants in Stockport whose local authority claims to keep rents down but leaves a whole series of repairs as the responsibility of the tenant—such matters as garden gates, broken windows, and so on. For those on supplementary benefit it is very difficult to meet those costs. So far they have had occasional success in obtaining supplementary benefit to meet some of the charges.
People who live fairly near Manchester pay slightly higher rents, but Manchester has up to now included as routine certain repairs, such as broken windows and garden gates, within the normal repairs that it does. The slightly higher rents are paid by the supplementary benefit authorities without any difficulty.
I hope that the Minister will make it clear that in those areas where local authorities exclude certain repairs from the tenancy agreement, leaving them to the tenant, the supplementary benefit authorities will still be able to meet those needs. Otherwise, there is discrimination between one area and another, and it will be difficult for some people to have basic repairs done.
The Government should give a lead. They should say "There is a problem with unemployment. There are increasing difficulties for many people, and this is the Government's programme", but they are not saying that. They are saying that we are going back to the 1930s. The Government should remember that many people grew up in the 1930s and


are bitter and scarred by their experience. We as a nation said that we never wanted to return to those conditions. We thought that we never would, yet now we have a Government who are bringing about increasing levels of unemployment as a deliberate policy, and at the same time destroying the safety net which is there to make sure that unemployed people do not sink back to poverty.
It is a sad day for the House when it has such a set of instruments before it, particularly as they are described as "up-rating", when in reality they are to reduce benefits.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): There are five hon. Members who wish to be accommodated in the next 45 minutes.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I had not intended to take part in the debate, and I shall try to be brief. As it was only a few weeks ago that I obtained the leave of the House to introduce a Bill on the uprating of child benefit, it behoves me to take the opportunity at once to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on his statement today, which is exceedingly helpful. I was not in the Chamber, but I understand that he said:
We are committed to the child benefit system, and it is our intention, subject to economic and other circumstances, to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value.
That is very much the essence of what I was asking for in the speech that I made as recently as April, which I know was regarded as very controversial by quite a number of hon. Members at the time. But my right hon. Friend has made that announcement, and I want to take the opportunity to congratulate and thank him.

Mr. Heffer: It is starting at the lower level.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The commitment to the future is the important thing. I want to make a particular point about that.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I should like to develop the point that I am coming to, which I think the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated. Then, if he insists, I shall of course give way, in spite of what Mr. Deputy Speaker said before he called me.
The difficulty that child benefit has laboured under is that it was neither an insurance benefit nor a tax allowance. It was an amalgam of the old William Pitt tax allowance with the family allowance, which was always of an uncertain status and for many years was neglected when other social benefits were uprated.
Child benefit appeared to be going to suffer the fate that it was not due to be uprated with national insurance scheme benefits nor caught by the Rooker-Wise amendments in the tax system. What worried so many hon. Members—certainly on the Conservative Benches—was that we were not certain whether child benefit would be allowed steadily to fall behind or even be left out of the uprating systems in the future altogether. So my right hon. Friend's announcement today is a major breakthrough for those of us who have campaigned for child benefit to be regarded as an essential element in the social services. It has now arrived as a component of the minimum income guarantee. But it is still something of a special case, because the entitlement to child benefit is not related to contributions. It is a citizen's benefit; it is not paid in relief of need. It has a certain status of its own even now.
This leads me to a particular recommendation that I should like to make. It concerns the whole business of national insurance benefits. Hon. Members were arguing today that there should have been increases because, with inflation, contributions had risen so much that the national insurance fund was flush with money and the Government could have afforded to uprate the benefits. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) who made that point. But it is not a logical argument, because the change has been made—it was inevitable, and we have all accepted it—that the fund is now paid not by flat-rate contributions but by earnings-related contributions. Therefore, it is really just another element in the income tax. Administratively, that point is made even clearer, because it is actually


collected through the PAYE system on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security.
We should now take the bull by the horns and scrap the national insurance system altogether, recognising that it has outlived its usefulness. In fact, there is no actuarial element left to relate what is paid in by contributors and what they are entitled to draw out. The whole farce of totting up members' contributions and assessing their eligibility for benefit on the basis of their contribution record has become mere hypocrisy and should be done away with.
In fact, what has happened to national insurance is that we have adopted a well-known Socialist principle. Contributions are based on the principle of
from each according to his abilities
and the benefits are something like
to each according to his needs".
However, national insurance benefits are related not to need but to status, because one is entitled, for instance, to a national insurance pension whether or not one has income of one's own. I think that that is a decided advantage, because it differentiates the national insurance benefit from the supplementary benefits, which are, unfortunately, still required by all too many millions of people.
If we were to scrap the whole national insurance system we should continue to pay the same benefits on the basis that citizens were entitled to receive these things according to their status. It might be child benefit, the pension, the invalidity allowance, widows benefit, or payments for those who are unemployed or those who qualify by their status in other categories.
I am sure that Labour hon. Members, who may not entirely like the drift of what I am saying, would not suggest that unemployment benefit, for instance, should be paid only to those who are destitute and should be withheld from those who have savings of their own.

Mr. Heffer: Let us get the historical record straight. The hon. Gentleman should know that in the first benefits Bills introduced in this House by the Labour Party all benefits were on a non-contributory basis. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is what the Labour Party first suggested a long time ago.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: If Mr. Deputy Speaker had not asked us to be brief, I would have sought to develop the theme that concern about improving the social services is not confined to one party. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who do not take much interest in the development of the social services and equally there are those on both sides who make it a matter of primary concern.
If we decided to scrap the national insurance system, it could be argued that instead of having three roots of entitlement to benefits, namely, need, the contribution record, and citizenship, we should have only two, namely, citizenship—primarily—and need. As there are deficiencies in the national insurance system, an enormous supplementary benefit structure has had to be developed. Every year several million people go in and out of the supplementary benefit system. In addition, millions are in it all the time. That is a disgrace, because it is wasteful, humiliating and obsolete. We should tackle the supplementary benefit system now. We should consider whether it is possible to introduce a larger number of categories of those entitled to benefit because of their status, rather than because they can prove that they are destitute unless they receive an allowance each week. The citizenship qualification should be enjoyed by everyone eligible to pay income tax. If a person is eligible to pay income tax, he or she is a member of the British social service system.
I believe that we could greatly reduce the numbers of those requiring supplementary benefit. We must first consider the level of child benefit. It would be wrong to pretend that I am satisfied with the level of child benefit. However, I am pleased that the Government have accepted that it will continue to be uprated, and that it will not fall back. If case work on child benefit is to be eliminated, one should not have one level for the children of those with incomes and another for those who belong to very low-income households.
Child benefit should be raised so that it is equal to the level of supplementary benefit. That would be a considerable item of expenditure, but the cost could be met by adjusting the tax concessions to married couples when both partners


are working and have no dependants. At present, such couples are very favourably treated by our system for the redistribution of income. Adjustments could also be made to the tax concessions of single wage earners who are not householders. That would mainly mean teenagers who live with their parents. Those categories may well enjoy child benefit in the future. Therefore, it would not be wrong if they were to make a larger contribution now, at a time when they can afford it.
If child benefit were raised to a point where it was the same whatever the circumstances of the family, it would have the enormous advantage of simplicity. A great amount of casework would be eliminated. Such a change would have the obvious moral advantage of fairness; and it would fully restore the incentives that occupy the minds of many people. It is all too often found, at present, that there is no point in working, because as one's income increases the loss of child benefits offsets what is gained in terms of income after tax.
I believe that another category of benefit should be introduced that would slash the numbers of those who have to apply for supplementary benefit. I should like a householder's allowance to be introduced as an automatic benefit. That would not, in fact, be an innovation, because many household subsidies have already been introduced in one form or another. Indeed, one or two of them sometimes seem to escape our notice. I wish to draw particular attention—as I have done before—to the concealed household benefit within the national insurance structure. As hon. Members know, the orders raise the single person's pension to £27·15, and a dependant's pension to £1630. But it is unattractive to have two categories of pension entitlement. Retirement pensions should be put on a unisex basis. If one paid both partners of a married couple in a pensioner household the same amount—let us say £16·30—it would not amount to the total that they now receive. The difference would amount to £10·85.
If I had longer in which to speak I would show how the situation has developed over the years. However, if one paid both parties £16·30 and paid the couple one allowance of £10·85, one

would leave them exactly as they stand at present in terms of income. However, the allowance that I am suggesting of £10·85 is the type of householder's allowance that is already concealed within the structure of national insurance benefits. We should identify it as a separate element in the retirement benefit and put pensioners' entitlements on to a unisex basis immediately. One need not draw attention to the other benefits for householders under the Housing Finance Act 1972. Nor need one draw attention to the housing subsidies as regards local authority finance, building society finance, and so on.
An administrative task lies ahead of us. All household allowances should be put on a rational and administratively comprehensible and simple basis. I hope that the House will increasingly consider the introduction of a householder's allowance, such as has existed for several years in Germany. The amount could be varied according to the amount of rent paid, the locality or to other circumstances, if it were thought that that would reduce the amount of casework in supplementary benefit assessment.
The orders will bring in reforms. Of course, there are elements that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not like. The Government think it necessary to introduce such measures because of the economic circumstances and the cloudy future of our economy. An important social change is taking place. It is not only in Britain that this important social change is taking place. I believe that it is a change that is both dangerous and unattractive. It might be called the revolt of the strong against the weak, or the rebellion of the "haves" against the "have nots".
I do not know whether this change began in California or whether it arose spontaneously in all Western countries, but it is a fact. The change of attitude has come about because the "have nots" are now a minority. Even in the 1930s the "have nots" probably formed the majority in our democracy. However, that is no longer the case in Western countries. The weak tend to be minority groups, such as the disabled and those who have lost their savings or their jobs. They are a minority. It is the duty of democracy to take on the responsibility of looking after minority groups.
I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are united in a sense of responsibility that makes them want to look after the minorities that we know to exist. I wish that there were a less partisan approach to the reform of the social services. The Select Committee has already begun to develop an atmosphere of comprehension and non-partisan dedication. I hope that that will bear fruit quickly. I also hope that the same attitude will be found in the House of Commons as a whole. The Government have given undertakings about the protection of minimum standards despite economic circumstances. Those undertakings are reassuring but much remains to be done. I hope that all hon. Members will work together to ensure that the necessary measures are carried out.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I have listened to the debate for four and a half hours with a rising sense of anger and despair—anger because we are debating regulations which vitally affect the poor, and it is becoming clearer how the poor will be treated by the regulations; and despair as a result of the speeches that have been made on child benefit, even by those who speak as friends of the scheme.
All speeches about child benefit have been prefaced by emphasis on the economic difficulties from which we now suffer. We have heard phrases such as "We cannot increase benefits until we produce the wealth," or "The economy is in a shaky condition." While it is right to look at the vertical distribution of the Government's Budget—the split between rich and poor—it is also vitally important to look at the distribution between those with children and those without children.
I wish to draw the House's attention to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) tried to make. We have suffered many lost opportunities on child benefit in this Parliament. We are not asking for more money to be spent. We are saying that, if families with children had had their fair share of the tax cuts, where would child benefit be today? In the Government's first Budget, taxation was cut by a record amount of £4·5 billion.
Families with children received £8 million of that. Had families with children got their fair share last year, child benefit would now be standing at £5·75 per child. Had families with children received their fair share in this year's tax cuts, we would have been debating an additional 50p increase in child benefit—in other words, a child benefit of around £6·25 a week instead of the £4·75 that we are discussing under one of the orders.
Another way of making advances for families with children without asking for an increase in public expenditure would have been to take the total amount of the tax cuts that should have gone to families with children. In the first Budget in a per capita division of those cuts, there would have been an extra £1·9 billion in child benefit. That would have given us enough money to bring child benefit in at the higher rate of national insurance addition paid to children had we taxed the benefit. Had we done that, we would have been speaking about a totally different position facing all families with children, whether they be rich or poor.
We have heard a lot from Members on the Government Benches about their being the party of the family. Had they given families their fair share of the tax cuts, perhaps they could have held their heads up high and made that statement with some honesty. We would have been supporting, in a visible way, what many of us believe to be the cornerstone of a free society—the family unit. We would have been supporting the mothers who make the major decisions about the family in a practical way. But we chose to do otherwise.
Many hon. Members talk about the problems of families caught in the poverty trap. Had we got a fair share for families with children in the two Budgets of this Government, we would have made major advances in bringing families out of the poverty trap. We hear a great deal—more from one side of the House than from the other—about the "Why work?" syndrome. Had we got our fair share for families from the Budget, that would have been much less of a problem than it is for many families today.
We have heard much talk from hon. Members about the need to simplify the


system. Of course, we would like these instruments to be written in intelligible English. But that is a dream, and we all know it. The best and most effective way of simplifying the system would be to make many of these orders irrelevant for large numbers of poor people. The way to have done that would have been to float them off means-tested assistance by giving in the tax cuts a fair share to families with children. We failed to do that.
Many hon. Members talk about extending freedom in the Welfare State. Had we got a fair share for families with children in the two Tory Budgets, we would have been a transformation of the scene. We would have seen a massive increase in child benefit payments and we would have begun to change the very nature of the Welfare State. The Welfare State could have been changed from a system that traps many people in poverty to one which lays a foundation for people to build on by their own efforts. It could have been reformed to enable it to work with human nature instead of against it.
We are used to the Secretary of State announcing cuts and therefore did not immediately understand the significance of his statement. Child benefit will now be on a par with other benefits and tax allowances. However, we have to regain the ground lost over the past couple of years.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State's statement was a forecast and not a commitment to put the problems right. It is jam tomorrow and not a promise of jam today.

Mr. Field: We hope that it is jam tomorrow. It certainly is not jam today.
When I first read the regulations dealing with single payments, I was not sure whether to laugh or cry. Had I been poor, I should have wept. I beg the Secretary of State to reconsider these regulations, if no other. His earlier intervention showed that he has no idea of what he is unleashing on the poor. He made the facile remark that the number of exceptional needs payments made 10 years ago was nothing compared with the number made last year. It was pointed out that possibly people are now more aware of their rights.
However, more importantly, the face of poverty has changed in the past 10 years. First, it increasingly wears a young face. Families with children are on supplementary benefit. Secondly, people are on supplementary benefit for longer periods. The single payment regulation is horrendous for families and old people on supplementary benefits.
The regulations are based on work that Seebohm Rowntree did at the turn of the century, when he measured the relative poverty of children and adults largely on the work of the American nutritionist Atwater. The arbitrary assumption was that the needs of children were only half those of adults. That assumption, although at times slightly varied, has remained fundamental to our benefits system. The Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) commissioned two inquiries into the conditions of the long-term poor, the unemployed and the sick. Not surprisingly, the reports showed that those with children were most hard pressed. The evidence that the Supplementary Benefits Commission gave to the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth also showed that in the Welfare State, if poverty pinches, it is for those families who have children.
However, regulation 27 of these wretched, vicious and expensive regulations states that exceptional needs payments will be made in future only when the
need has arisen otherwise than by normal wear and tear
of clothing. However, under the existing regulations, last year and this about 400,000 payments will have been made, mainly to families with children who are in desperate need. That safety valve of the Welfare State is being closed and it appears that the Secretary of State is unaware of what he is doing to the poor. In the 14 months that I have been an hon. Member, I have learnt that one rarely shifts the Government once they have made up their mind and made a public announcement. However, if there is to be just one change in the 11 instruments that we are debating, I beg the Government to look again at the single payments regulations and at how they will affect families with children.
We have all had at our surgeries constituents who are desperate in their


poverty and who do not know how they will make ends meet. We have been able to help them a little under the existing rules. Often those people almost blame themselves for their poverty and their failure. If the safety valve is closed, God help the poor, and God help us with what will follow socially in our society.

Mr. David Myles: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) because his expertise on child benefits and other matters, gained in a former position, is valuable to the House. I congratulate him on his speech and suggest that constant dripping may one day wear away a stone.
I am grateful for having been called, because, having sat almost mute opposite the hon. Member for Birkenhead in debates on the first Social Security Act 1980 and opposite the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in debates on both Social Security Acts, I welcome the chance to say something about these instruments. I agreed to serve on the Committees on those Acts—if that is what one does here—because I felt that I needed experience of such matters. I have never been on social security, unless one regarded the hill livestock compensatory allowances as supplementary benefit.
Another reason why I agreed to serve on the Committees was that everyone to whom I spoke about political matters at any length before the election brought up the subject of social security. I do not know whether the political exposure given to the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), whose constituency is not far from mine, stimulated the concern or whether it was the natural compassionate feelings of the folk in the North-East of Scotland, but the vast majority of the electorate in that part of the country felt that we were allocating a disproportionate share of our national wealth to social security handouts. That opinion was certainly not confined to Tory voters.
Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Stockport, North, may be interested to know that at least one hon. Member on this side supports the instruments, and I believe that many people outside support them.
I listened with interest in Committee to the arguments of Labour Members on

why we should keep increasing expenditure, though they hardly mentioned where the money should come from. It must be remembered, however, that we are increasing spending, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) pointed out, from more than £15,000 million to, it is envisaged, almost £20,000 million, so we are not grabbing, taking away from or decreasing the considerable amount allocated to this purpose. The only part of the Government's spending which can be compared with it is the sum spent on the interest on the national debt, which was encouraged and increased by the Labour Government. I doubt whether we should get as much return from that spending as we do from this. The hon. Member for Birkenhead might get the increased benefits that he wants to see if we did not have to spend so much on the interest of those borrowings.
To be fair, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) had no doubt from where the money should come. He said, loud and clear, "Cut our defence spending." If we want to give our poor and needy the support they would get in Afghanistan, that might be a good idea. If we want to increase our borrowings, as the last Government did, so that the interest payments on the national debt outweigh the revenues from North Sea oil, that again is a possibility. If we want to divide the national cake now and pay no attention to the problems of our successors, that, too, is an option. If we want to soften up our people so that no one wants to work productively, we can carry out the profligate policies advocated by the Opposition.
But if we want to protect those in real need, if we want to be cost effective and to simplify the system so that not just the wise guys benefit, if we want to reduce fraud and the abuse of the system, if we want to encourage voluntary and compassionate organisations and at the same time encourage the wealth creators, we must support the Government in their sensible, courageous policy. It is the only one in the long run that will benefit those in need.

Mr. Reg Race: We have just heard from the hon. Member for


Banff (Mr. Myles) what can only be described as a Neanderthal speech. I commend the hon. Gentleman for having the political courage to make a speech which none of his hon. Friends has dared to make. If only for that reason, I commend him, although I did not agree with any part of his speech.
I want to correct the hon. Member on one major error. The Tories constantly argue that the health and personal social services budget and—as the hon. Member for Banff said—the social security budget have not been cut. Both propositions are totally fallacious. One has only to read the public expenditure White Paper published by his own Government to see that this is so. The social security budget has been cut by £1,084 million up to the financial year 1982·83 from the plans made by the previous Labour Government. That is clearly a major cut. Programme 11, dealing with health and personal social services, has also been cut by substantial amounts. The arguments of Conservative Members, that the social security budget has been increasing at a rate unsupportable by our economy, must be carefully examined. One of the reasons for the increase in the social security budget is the switch from child tax allowances to child benefit. The increase in child benefit and its move from tax allowances to social security has had a major effect on the size of the social security budget. A second major factor has been the demographic changes to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) has referred—namely, that old people are living longer and that there are more old people to whom more benefits have to be paid.
The third, and perhaps the most significant, argument is unemployment. When the Labour Party won the March 1966 general election, unemployment was at a post-war low of 260,000. It is now 1·89 million and rising. Last month's increase in unemployment will cost the DHSS about £275 million in benefits over a full year, which shows the extent to which the transformation of our society into an unemployed society is causing problems for the social security budget.
The argument is not that the benefits are too high but that changed economic and political circumstances have increased the social security budget. That is a

different matter. If we want to cut the social security budget in a meaningful fashion, the way to do so is not to cut the benefits on which people rely but to cut unemployment. That could be the most significant single policy that the Government could carry out. Yet we see before us tonight these absurd and reactionary orders.
Conservative Members have tried to persuade the House that the sacrifices being asked of those receiving social security benefits are no greater than the sacrifices that, it is alleged, people at the top of the scale are making. That argument is absolute nonsense. Someone who will be denied an exceptional needs payment for shoes or clothing ought to know already the kind of treatment being given to other people in our society.
One sees the differential treatment clearly in the Budget Statement. A single person on £30,000 a year got £4,329 in tax relief from the Chancellor in the 1979 Budget and a further £613 in the 1980 Budget—a grand total of £4,942, before any wage increase. A married couple on £20,000 a year received £1,975 in tax relief in the 1979 Budget and an additional £402 in the 1980 Budget—a grand total of £2,377.
So that I cannot be accused of taking only people at the top end of the spectrum, I would also refer to a couple whose joint income is £10,000 a year, which is quite common these days. Someone in that position under the 1979 Budget received a tax handout of £348 and a further £61 in the 1980 Budget—a grand total of £409. The way in which people earning between £10,000 and £20,000 upwards are treated is different from the way in which social security benefit claimants are treated under the regulations. It is outrageous to pretend otherwise. I suspect that that is why the hon. Member for Banff is the only Government Back Bencher to support the regulations.

Mr. William Hamilton: My hon. Friend argues about priorities. When we were discussing the Social Security (No. 2) Bill I referred repeatedly to the Blue Book on defence. That book shows that we are finding £145 million for each nuclear submarine, which is slightly more than the sum which the Government are


taking from old-age pensioners by deferring the pension increase for a fortnight.

Mr. Race: My hon. Friend is right. The Blue Book gives us the opportunity to examine the Government's priorities carefully. The replacement of Polaris by Trident is another example of the Government spending vast sums to blow us all to pieces instead of providing shoes, clothing and proper benefits for people in desperate need.
The Government might be able to convince us by their arguments if they could show that the scale of benefits is adequate to meet needs, including the need to replace household equipment. However, the scale rates are low and will not rise rapidly and many people who must exist on the scale rates for a long period find difficulty in replacing even the smallest household item. That will apply more as exceptional needs payments are withdrawn. I foresee that more supplementary benefit claimants will buy shoes and clothes from jumble sales, as some do already, and will not be able to rely on exceptional needs payments for a decent standard of living.
The proposals mean that about 750,000 people will be better off when the Act comes into force. However, between 1¾ million and 2 million social security benefit claimants will be worse off. People must understand that this debate is not about tidying up or about making matters simple. It is about cutting benefits. It is about another Government strategy to reduce the real living standards of the poor and their families.
The regulations are dangerous and divisive. The people at the sharp end will not be the Secretary of State or the Minister of State but the people in the local DHSS offices. They will be members of the Civil and Public Services Association and the Society of Civil and Public Servants, who will administer the benefit changes. They will be adversely affected. Claimants will ask them "Why cannot I have an exceptional needs payment for my kids' shoes?" Civil servants will have to explain that the regulations do not allow for that. Ten to one, the claimant will go away and say "Someone at the benefit office has a down on me".
The people at the sharp end will be the clerical and administrative staff in local offices. For that reason, I strongly

support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). People in DHSS offices should be protected. In every DHSS office there should be displayed an explanation of how benefits are worked out and how these regulations operate. If we can display such notices under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 we can do it for social security regulations. We should display such an explanation as soon as the regulations come into force.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the serious points made by Opposition Members about the publication of a new supplementary benefit handbook. We should have that as soon as possible, given the chaos that is likely to ensue in social security offices when pension increases are implemented in November and when the changes in the regulations come into force.
This debate has been about the Tories cutting benefits to those least able to look after themselves. It is no good the Tories pretending that this legislation is anything but a fundamental attack on the rights of people on social security to a reasonable standard of living and their liability to protect themselves and their families against fortune which may have swept them out of work and on to supplementary or unemployment benefit. We must create a society—and we in the Opposition must argue for it—totally different from that envisaged in the philosophy of Conservative Members.
We must argue for a society in which income and wealth differentials are compressed and abolished as far as possible. That is the kind of society for which we should argue. I hope that we in the Labour movement will oppose these outrageous and reactionary measures with every ounce of force.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: This debate has been one of the most depressing that I have sat through in this House. In the years during which I have been in this place, and in the years before I came here, when I followed matters from a distance, most of the arguments in this context—and many of them were heated—were about the pace at which improvements should be made and


were not being made by successive Governments.
There were arguments during the period of office of the previous Labour Government, and former Labour Governments, just as there were under Conservative Governments, about the rate of change and about the improvement and enhancement of our social services and the social security system. The arguments have not been about those issues today. The arguments have been about the action of the Government in robbing pensioners, robbing the sick and robbing the disabled and others in the poorest and neediest sector of our society.
It is not mere rhetoric to say that. The Government are making specific and real cuts in benefits. We are no longer arguing about whether we should improve benefits; we are arguing about whether we should try to save the present level of benefits in real terms. The Government have decided to cut benefits sharply to many people in need.
We should be arguing, as we have done in the past—the right hon. Gentleman has joined in those arguments—about the way in which we can enhance our system and improve our social policy. Yet the past months have been taken up by arguments, advanced mainly by Opposition Members but also by some Conservative Members and people outside the House, in retreat. We have fought a rearguard action and have lost, as we shall lose tonight. We have argued about cuts in this area that are as mean as could have been imposed in certain sectors. I shall come back to that.
As has been said, what we are concerned with tonight is not an uprating order but a downrating order. The Government are deliberately reducing the value of benefits to millions of our worst-off citizens, following benefits of thousands of millions of pounds to the better-off and the best-off in our society in the past two Budgets.
I turn to more specific matters. The 16·5 per cent. increase in pensions that the Government are proposing is quite inadequate in the face of an inflation rate that is running at more than 20 per cent., and in the face of a surplus of nearly £700 million in the national insurance fund this year. A lengthy and unconvincing

case was put to us by the Secretary of State for basing pensions and other increases on a 16·5 per cent. inflation rate.
As I listened to him, I was persuaded by him that he has got the jitters about the Government's inflation forecast. I think that he has really been saying to his colleagues inside Government" How can I lay an uprating order based on a 16½ per cent. inflation rate when we all know—the Government as well—that prices will have risen far more than that over the 12½ months up to 24 November"? Why else would the Chancellor have gone out of his way in the industry debate on 10 July to confirm the 16½ per cent. figure? The right hon. and learned Gentleman chose his words carefully, He did not say "I still think that 16½ per cent. is right", but rather:
I see no reason to depart from the view that the movement in prices over the period in question will be 16½ per cent.".—[Official Report, 10 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 798.]
Those were strangely convoluted words to use, rather than the simple statement that the Chancellor could have made had he believed the figure. It will be very interesting indeed to see the detailed evidence on which that statement was based. The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard me when I spoke from a sedentary position during his speech. I again invite him to publish the working papers, or at least a summary of them, that passed inside the Government after this careful review and that led to the conclusion that an inflation rate of 16½ per cent. was still the forecast. We shall be interested to see the working papers that produced confirmation of that figure.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is not for me to decide that. On the basis of the papers that I have seen, I undertake to get in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to see whether that could be done, although my right hon. and learned Friend and myself would have to be guided by precedents. The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that I quoted from an article in the Financial Times, in which the writer recognised that most outside commentators thought that the Chancellor had got it right and that 16 £per cent. would be the figure. We are not alone in that view.

Mr. Freeson: No one is questioning the fact that the inflation rate will come down. Indeed, people said that long before these commentators recently made their comments. However, I was commenting not on the views of the outside commentators but rather on the views of the inside commentators. I appreciate that the Secretary of State cannot make a promise tonight, but I hope that as a result of his consultation with the Chancellor my request will produce results and that we shall see the working papers that confirmed that figure.
We must ask whether the Treasury experts are really telling the Chancellor that they still think that the rate will be 16½ per cent.—not 16½ per cent. on an annual basis, but for 54 weeks, which means about 16 per cent. per year. I think that the report in The Daily Telegraph of 20 June, quoting an outside commentator, was nearer the mark, when it said that confidential Treasury forecasts expected inflation to be running at 18 to 19 per cent. in the final quarter of this year. Frankly, I believe that the Secretary of State has been ordered by the Chancellor virtually to mislead the House. I believe that the Treasury's official forecast is still well above 16·5 per cent.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman must accept that my opinion, which I have to express under the Act, is based upon my examination, and that of my advisers, of the Treasury forecast covering the 54-week period. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to say what he said, and I hope that he will withdraw his remark.

Mr. Freeson: I have no intention of withdrawing it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is making an accusation of bad faith on my part? Does he consider that that is appropriate in the House?

Mr. Freeson: In my opinion the Treasury has virtually instructed the Secretary of State to confirm the figure, and that is misleading the House. I phrased my remarks carefully. I shall restate them if need be, but that would waste the time of the House. I do not believe—and I do not think that anybody in the House believes—the figure of 16·5 per cent. When the Budget was presented,

even its forecast allowed for a 2 per cent. margin of error. Now we are told, months later, that it is still precisely 16·5 per cent., even though at the time of the Budget there was a 2 per cent. margin of error in the calculations.
The Secretary of State said that the Government would give serious consideration to making good any shortfall if 16·5 per cent. inflation was exceeded, but he could not guarantee that. On the Second Reading of what is now the Social Security Act 1980, under which the orders are being introduced, he promised to protect the pensioner against price rises. The Under-Secretary repeated that promise several times in Committee. She said:
"the Government have given a firm pledge that pensioners will be protected against increasing prices."
She said also that
"the Government had given a pledge of their firm intention to protect pensioners"—
note the words "firm intention"—
"against price increases and to let them share in the increasing prosperity of the country."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 February 1980, c. 263·64.]
That implies a link with earnings.
The Minister joined in by giving "a guarantee to the pensioners in terms of prices."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 5 February 1980, c. 212.]
I understand that not long ago, in a private meeting with representatives of elderly persons' organisations, the Under-Secretary said that sympathetic consideration would be given by the Government should there be a shortfall. Is it to be a serious consideration, a sympathetic consideration, or a guarantee? Which of those three will it be? When will it happen—12 months later, or as early as possible in the 12 months following 24 November when it is seen that the shortfall has occurred? That would be the fairest method. It should be undertaken in the light of the promises that were made repeatedly both in debates in the House and in Committee, let alone what may have been said on platforms else-where.

Mr. Freud: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at about 8 o'clock there was notification on the Tape of a written question answered by the Minister, in which he explained the valuation down by £3 or £4 per week of the old-age pension in real terms? Is it not strange


that that written question, which was published earlier today, was not referred to by the Secretary of State in the debate?

Mr. Freeson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was not aware of that question having been tabled and answered. I look forward to seeing the text in full. It raises an important point. I presume that the question related to the real loss of value during the 12 or 18 months to date. It is a significant figure if it is correct. Perhaps we shall have further elucidation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman must not allow himself to be misled by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). My hon. Friend was asked by how much the pension had lost value since it was last increased. The answer is that we shall put it up in November by enough to enable it to recover its value. However, the right hon. Gentleman has still not answered my earlier question. Is he charging me with saying that I do not believe the forecast to which I committed myself this afternoon? If he is saying that, he must say so clearly, and we can take the appropriate steps to deal with it in the manner in which these things can be dealt with in the House.

Mr. Freeson: The right hon. Gentleman may take all the appropriate steps that he wishes to take. I have said at length what I have said, it is on the record, and he can read it in the Official Report tomorrow. I suggest to him that the most effective step that he can take is to give a clear promise to the House and the country that if I am right and he is wrong, he will make good the shortfall promptly. That is what we require.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It seems that the point that has been gone over twice rather unsatisfactorily needs elucidation. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman used a special form of words. Is he saying that the Treasury deliberately misled my right hon. Friend, or that my right hon. Friend was knowingly misled, or what?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman has heard what I said. Let him and the right hon. Gentleman read the record. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is getting a little too agitated and protesting too much. I will say again

clearly what I mean. I do not believe the 16½ per cent. figure to be correct. Let the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House and to the country on behalf of the Government, with the support of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), that if I am right and he is wrong, the shortfall will be made good for the pensioners. That is what I have said several times.
There is only one person wriggling in this House tonight, and that is the person who will not give a promise to make good to the pensioners any shortfall that may occur towards the end of this year. I shall gladly give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to make that promise now. Let him give the answer. We are not concerned here only with pensioners. We are concerned also with other beneficiaries who are to suffer cuts.
These matters have been debated at great length both inside the House and outside. From now on people will know how to judge the liberalism of the right hon. Gentleman on these matters. We know what the conduct of the Government has been in practice, beyond the rhetoric of general election and pre-election speeches. We know that, for the first time in half a century, benefits are being cut in real terms for those who are most in need—the sick, the invalids, the industrially injured and old-age pensioners. I could name others.
If the Government will give an undertaking to make good the shortfall, at least some benefit will be gained from the debate, but so far that invitation has been refused. We must assume that when the shortfall occurs there will effectively be a continuation of the cuts. We must also assume, without a clear and unequivocal undertaking, that those who are to suffer the 5 per cent. cuts—even below the 16½ per cent. rate of inflation—as the basis of their benefits going up in November will also have their benefits cut permanently unless they are made good when they are taken into the tax net approximately two years from now.
I deal next with child benefit. We had what was taken by some to be an undertaking by the Secretary of State—a qualified undertaking. To me it was not a clear undertaking, because he did not make clear whether the shortfall would be made good. People in receipt of child benefit


in the autumn will receive a 75p increase per week, instead of the £1.20 needed to keep pace with inflation. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us that when this improvement takes place in the unknown future that loss will be made good and will operate from a sensible base instead of a downgraded base in child benefit. I do not take that to be an unequivocal undertaking.
It is not good enough, after the years of campaigning, or apparent campaigning, by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on this issue to have that kind of fudgy statement, given in tones of a firm undertaking, but which, when one considers the words, is not such an undertaking. The House cannot find that satisfactory. However much people may have the wool pulled over their eyes for months and years, in the end they will not find that kind of statement in the House and elsewhere satisfactory.
A whole series of benefits will be cut and losses experienced under these regulations. About 190,000 pensioners will lose £1 a week because of the new rules on occupational pensions. Supplementary benefit will be cut for nearly 1,900,000 pensioners, sick and disabled people because of other changes in the regulations.
Overnight, 7,000 pensioners will lose their supplementary benefit—up to £30 a week in some cases—because they have capital of over £2,000. That figure was first proposed in the 1978 report on social assistance. Even if that figure were correct and sound then—and I would challenge it—it should be updated to £2,500 in line with inflation. No action is proposed on that figure, so people will lose considerably.
Not only are pensions and supplementary benefits being cut, but adult rates of unemployment, sickness, industrial injury, maternity and invalidity benefits are to be increased by 5 per cent. below the already questionable estimate of 16·5 per cent. inflation in November. That will mean weekly losses of between 90p and £1·95 for all concerned.
The cuts are being presented as "an interim measure in lieu of taxation". Two important points need to be made clear. First, across-the-board cuts are a crude and unjust substitute for taxation. Many claimants affected would not pay tax on

their benefits if they had been brought into the tax net this year. Secondly, if the cuts in benefits, which could be repeated in 1981 and 1982 under the Social Security (No. 2) Bill—totalling a loss of about 14 per cent. or £20 a week—are "an interim measure in lieu of taxation", it must be fair and logical to restore the value of the benefits once they are brought into the tax net.
As I indicated, the Secretary of State said that the real value of the invalidity benefit will be restored once it is brought into tax "subject to availability of resources". That formulation could apply to any and every action of the Government in every sphere, so making the statement effectively meaningless. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give even this equivocal assurance for the unemployment, sickness, maternity and injury benefit cuts that are being implemented by the Government. Once the benefits are brought into tax, the yield should exceed the savings made by cutting benefits. In justice, the first call on this money should be to restore the real value of the benefits. Without such a commitment, we must conclude that this so-called "interim measure" marks a permanent cut in benefits.
The combined effect of the cuts in flat-rate benefit supplements and the abolition of the earnings-related supplement will mark a clear step back from the long-term goal, ostensibly shared by all political parties, of reducing dependence on means-tested supplementary benefits—one of the main themes of the 1978 review of social assistance, on which the regulations are supposedly based. Well over 100,000 more people will be pushed on to supplementary benefit as a result of the actions being taken under these regulations. When I say "well over", we must bear in mind that that 100,000 or more will be added to by the increasing level of unemployment from which the country is suffering.
Before I ended, I had it in mind to put a number of specific questions, but time has gone on. So it will be the intention of Opposition Members, myself included, and, I trust, also Conservative Members, to follow through with the Secretary of State detailed questions on a variety of aspects of the regulations and the instruments before us tonight. However we protect and vote tonight, the


Government will get their way. At this stage there is one thing on which it is important to get an assurance and which we must be prepared to follow up. That is the closest possible detailed monitoring of the effect of these regulations and orders generally, so that we can persuade the Government to change them as quickly as possible should things go wrong in a bigger way than we are expecting in this debate, or as badly as we are expecting in some of our remarks, for the many hundreds of thousands of poor people who will be affected.
I cannot end simply by calling for that close monitoring and by declaring that a number of us will follow through with a variety of detailed questions on which we have notes but have not had time to put forward during the debate. I expressed my deep depression about the nature of this debate at the start of my speech. I end by declaring clearly that in my view—and I say it again—the Government are knowingly cheating millions of the poorest people in our community of some of their welfare benefits. That is what these orders and regulations are really about—attacking the very people in need of greatest protection.
The Government's posture and policies are encouraging a campaign and an attitude of hostility—the revolt of the strong against the weak; an attitude of hostility against poor people and the welfare services on which they depend. Such hostility has been elevated to a political virtue in some quarters on the Conservative Benches. We are going through a shameful period. We are becoming a less generous people.
That is what these orders and regulations represent, and that is why we shall vote against the Government tonight. That is why we have chosen to vote upon item No. 8 on the Order Paper, the single payments regulations, because this is the meanest and most vicious of the Government's actions. It is referred to as the single payments amendment, whereby people who are in need of clothing grants will have them virtually cut off, and whereby the Government are going against the recommendations of the social assistance review report of 1978, which said that we should discipline the system and remove the discretion but

recommended that it should be done by introducing regular lump sum payments for those in need who have been getting ad hoc payments up till now. That is what could and should have been done.
We can only conclude that once more it has been decided inside the Government to make a surreptitious cut of some significant kind in expenditure on those who are most greatly in need. If we are overstating the position, it is possible for the Minister to give us a calculation of the savings that will be effected in the total budget by this move on the Government's part. We shall vote against it. We have chosen the single payments instrument deliberately, because, as I say, it is the most vicious and the meanest of the lot, however much we criticise the others. That is why we shall vote against it. We hope to see a time come again when this Parliament and political parties in this country generally, in the spirit of the remarks of some Conservative Members, will debate as heatedly as we all would wish improvements and advances in social policy—not rearguard actions, not defeats, not cuts, and not a tax on the poor and needy, as represented by the Government's policies before us tonight.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): I am deeply sorry to say that the House has just listened to a cheap, nasty and thoroughly disgraceful speech. When the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services had given the 16½ per cent. forecast today because he was virtually ordered to do so by the Treasury, that was a clear implication that my right hon. Friend was acting in bad faith. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that, to rise now, if he will, and to withdraw it.
As the right hon. Gentleman does not do so, I put to the House the reasons why we who care about the reputation of the House will expect a statement from him later this week, when he has had time to reflect on what he said and when he has had a chance to read again what he said and to read again what my right hon. Friend said. I remind those who were in the House at the beginning of the


debate that my right hon. Friend set out in detail and in depth his exact statutory duty. He has a duty to recommend an uprating of pensions based on his estimate of what is the nearest possible figure that can be arrived at for restoring the value of the pensions as they were in 1979—not the Treasury's figure or the figure of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, but his figure; not the figure that was worked out at the time of the Budget but a figure in which he has confidence today.
My right hon. Friend explained to the House the doubts that he had entertained a few weeks ago as to whether the 16½ per cent. would still be the correct figure to be the basis of his recommendation today. He then explained the reasons why he now believed that it was right. He referred to the decline of the wholesale price index from January onwards. He referred to the fact that the retail price index had already peaked. He referred to the CBT survey of the intentions of firms and the fact that a fewer number of firms than at any time since 1973 proposed to raise their prices in the next four months. He referred to those facts and then said that he had come, after all that consideration, to the 16½ per cent. figure.
As my right hon. Friend's colleague and his friend, I can testify to the way in which he has agonised over this problem in recent weeks. He is an honourable man, and he made an honourable statement to the House. To imply otherwise is disgraceful. I urge the wiser and more sober members of the Opposition to have a word with the right hon. Gentleman and suggest that he should withdraw that disgraceful allegation. I give him another opportunity so to do. As the right hon. Gentleman does not intervene, I shall proceed to the rest of the debate, and shall ignore anything else said by the right hon. Gentleman.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. Eleven main sets of regulations or orders are before the House, many of them breaking new ground, new ground that arises from the major social security legislation of this Session, on which the House, both on the Floor and in Committee, spent over 200 hours in debate, and on which also a great deal of time was spent in another place. Inevitably, there

has been a kind of selective replay of some of the arguments that were advanced during those hours. I can make only a very selective reply.
I should like to concentrate at the beginning on commending to the House, with enthusiasm, the changes in the structure and the methodology of the supplementary benefits system. The fact that change was overdue was recognised by the last Government, is recognised by the present Government, and was recognised by the Supplementary Benefits Commission and by everyone who has had anything to do with the subject.
The main reason for recommending the changes with enthusiasm has been given by my right hon. Friend. They represent a considerable change of emphasis away from discretion and towards entitlement. It is a far more dignified system in terms of the needs of the human beings concerned than we have ever operated.
The requirements regulation and the single payments regulation build up the individual's entitlement in a structured way. In regulation 4 of the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1980 there is a definition of "normal requirements". The definition covers the necessities of life, which vary from obvious items such as food, household fuel and the purchase, cleaning and repair of clothing and footwear to leisure and amenity items such as television licence and rental, newspapers confectionery and tobacco. The additional requirements cover such matters as heating costs, diet, hospital fares, hire purchase requirements and so on. On top of that, there are the housing requirements. In addition, single payments are defined under various headings such as maternity needs, funeral expenses, the nine separate categories of housing expenses, household expenses and miscellaneous expenses.
The ultimate fall-back comes in regulation 30, which gives a discretionary power—under narrowly defined terms—to meet needs that are outside the other categories. This is the most structured form of support that society has ever provided for those in greatest need. It should be commended because it represents an advance for human dignity.

Mr. Orme: If it is such a good proposal, why are there 2½ million losers and only ½ million gainers?

Mr. Prentice: I shall explain that in a moment, but the right hon. Genlteman's figures are wrong.
The second reason for believing that this measure represents a social reform of considerable value is that it introduces a more open system that is simpler to understand. The individual claimant and the claimant's advisers can more accurately check whether the claimant is getting what he is entitled to. The individual can understand what he is entitled to, and there will be a structured system of appeals.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) gave some figures. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were wrong. It would help if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what the correct figures are.

Mr. Prentice: I should be able to do so more rapidly if I were not subjected to unnecessary interventions.
The regulations are inevitably set out in legalistic terms. That is necessary, because we are defining precise entitlements under the law. The hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) said that they were gobbledegook. I have some sympathy with her, but we wish to establish legal entitlements that will be subject to legal appeals. Therefore, such language is essential.
First, we are committed to a revision of all our explanatory leaflets. Secondly, we are committed to issuing a new edition of the supplementary benefits handbook. Thirdly, we are committed to issuing a written notice of entitlement to each claimant, and to explain the way in which it has been built up. I hope to have all that completed when the scheme comes into operation in November. We shall try to complete it earlier, but the House will be aware that the regulations do not complete the job. Other regulations on other aspects need to be produced. The explanatory work cannot be completed until the regulations have been completed. However, we shall proceed as quickly as possible, and we shall do everything that we can to have it ready in time.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister agree that, in view of the substantial number of appeals against supplementary benefit assessments, it would benefit the Government

financially to bring this about sooner rather than later?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, but there are the operational problems to which I have referred. There will then be the problem of getting the printing done. We will do it as quickly as we can—that is better from every point of view, most of all that of the claimants. A set of the explanatory leaflets will be available in local offices and claimants can get them on demand.
The system will be underpinned by a new system of adjudication by which the claim will be settled originally by a benefits officer, with an appeal to a local tribunal, and a further avenue of appeal to the social security commissioner. This is parallel to the system that has stood the test of many years in the main insurance field.
The third reason for commending these changes to the House is that they provide a simpler and fairer structure of benefits on a nil-cost basis. Any realistic assessment of the situation must involve recognising the need for this to be done on a nil-cost basis. On such a basis clearly some people will lose on balance. They will not suffer a cut in benefits, but their uprating in November will be a little less than it otherwise would have been. Others will gain on balance in the sense that their uprating will be more. The figures that we have given to the House show that 1¾ million people will lose on balance, ¾ million will gain and ½ million will remain unchanged. The fact that those who lose on balance are more numerous than those who gain simply reflects the fact that the losers will lose comparatively little and the gainers will gain comparatively more.
We are attempting here to give extra help to some of the most vulnerable groups, such as the 98,000 people who will move from short-term rates to long-term rates in one year instead of two. This will include a number of disabled people and a number of one-parent families as well as others whose needs are of great concern to us. Others who gain on balance will be the 340,000 families with children who will gain from the fact that we are reducing the number of children's scale rate from five to three. That involves a levelling-up process rather than a levelling-down process. Therefore, there


will be more help, particularly for families on supplementary benefits who have a number of children. It is among those families that some of the greatest poverty has occurred.

Mr. Orme: Coming back to the figures, because short-term rates will not be brought into line with national insurance benefits, there will be about 200,000 to 230,000 claimants who will not now be gainers. They must be taken off the numbers that the right hon. Gentleman has just given to the House. If we take into consideration the dependants of the losers—families with two children and the wives—the end figures are ½ million gainers and 2½ million losers. Does the right hon. Gentleman contradict those figures?

Mr. Prentice: The combined view of the Treasury Bench is that the right hon. Gentleman is a little mixed up. However, we can pursue this by correspondence. The essential point on which we agree is that there are gainers and losers and that those who are gaining are those in the greatest need, the most vulnerable in society for whom we wanted to do more.
Some doubt has been cast on the views of the Supplementary Benefits Commission about these changes. I shall quote to the House the statement of welcome for these changes made by the SBC on 29 November 1979:
We particularly welcome the proposal that the rules governing entitlement to benefit should be set out in full in an Act and in regulations. These rules will emphasise entitlement and replace the Commission's present discretionary powers. As we said in our response to the supplementary benefit review report, The proper forum for debate on the rules affecting supplementary benefit claimants is Parliament. 
The remarks continued:
We are also pleased to see the proposals for changes which will provide more benefit for families, a shorter qualifying period for those eligible for the higher long-term rates … and equal treatment for men and women.
Other reasons are also given for welcoming our proposals. Most objective observers will agree that we have begun the process of producing a more rational, logical and fair system of supplementary benefits although much remains to be done.
I shall turn now briefly to some of the other points raised. My hon. Friend

the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and others expressed doubt about the date of the 1981 uprating. The provisions of the Social Security Act 1980 require the 1981 uprating to take place not later than the week beginning 23 November. It would not be in accordance with the law for the uprating to be later than that.
Several hon. Members mentioned the national insurance fund and the Government Actuary's forecast. I emphasise that the Actuary was making a forecast three months into the financial year. My right hon. Friend explained that the balance depends on the relationship of two enormous totals, which can be considerably varied by small percentage changes. The forecast of £687 million does not mean that there will be a surplus of £687 million. Many factors could alter that figure, particularly the rise in unemployment. A rise of 100,000 in the number of unemployed means a downward movement of about £180 million in the fund. It has been suggested that the large surplus could lead to a revision of the up-rating in November or payment for other benefits, but against that background such suggestions are not in touch with reality.
Many hon. Members also mentioned child benefit. My right hon. Friend has made a commitment that, subject to economic and other circumstances, child benefit will be uprated each year to maintain its real value. That commitment was broadly welcomed. My right hon. Friend intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) to state that in the public expenditure programme from now on child benefit would be included under the social security heading rather than being an item financed from the contingency reserve. Many hon. Members have been pressing for that to happen and will therefore welcome the statement.
Turning briefly to the question of a possible shortfall in pension and other benefit upratings this November, I again repeat what my right hon. Friend said, for the benefit of those hon. Members who were not in the Chamber. We shall give serious consideration next year to making good from then on any significant shortfall, having regard to economic and other circumstances then. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member


for Kemptown and others have said, it is important to underline the word "then". The possibility would be adjustment from November 1981 and not a backdated adjustment. There has never been a question of backdated adjustments under any Government.
That brings me back to the 16½ per cent. forecast. With the exception of the right hon. Member for Brent, East, who made an unfortunate speech, hon. Members on both sides were content to accept the statement of my right hon. Friend in his opening speech. The question to which the House must address itself is what the rate of inflation will be after November this year and how soon, and at what rate, the new benefits will be eroded. My hon. Friend the Member for Kemp-town pointed out the devastating effect on pensioners' savings and morale of inflation at the rate that we have experienced in recent years.
Part of the answer must lie in the nature of the increases in wages and salaries in the next pay round.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Here comes 10 minutes of union bashing.

Mr. Prentice: Nothing of the sort. However, any hon. Member who is sponsored by a trade union has a duty not merely to take advice from that union but to give advice back. One thing that should be made clear is that it is no use trade union conferences passing resolutions in support of increases for pensioners if they pass resolutions the next day in favour of massive wage demands that would undermine the value of the pound in the pensioner's purse.
Another part of the answer lies in the need for the Government to keep firmly to their targets for public expenditure and public borrowing. Unhappily, we have had to listen again to the usual dreary chorus of mock indignation from the Labour Benches about cuts—an easy word that trips off the tongue. We have all used it.

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman used to use it.

Mr. Prentice: It is a curious use of language in relation to the package of proposals contained in the instruments, which amount to total extra public expenditure of £3 billion in a full year. Of

course, a small percentage of that sum has been shaved off by the proposals of the No. 2 Act and other economies agreed by the Government and approved by the House.

Mr. Race: Shaved off?

Mr. Prentice: That is an inevitable part of the reining back of public expenditure which is at the centre of the Government's strategy. That involves bringing down the level of public expenditure by 4 per cent. in real terms between now and 1983–84.
No part of the community has a greater stake in the success of our struggle against inflation than the pensioners and the other groups we are discussing.

Mr. Ennals: So why should they suffer?

Mr. Prentice: It is clear that, by repeated commitments to higher expenditure, the Labour Party has opted out of that struggle. Labour Party overspending has gone through three stages. Mark I overspending was the overspending of the Labour Government in office—going up year after year, up by 5½ per cent. in the 12 months before the general election and planned to rise further. Labour overspending Mark II consists of the promises made and inferred as a result of the proposals from Labour Benches and the Labour amendments moved in Committee. On the first Social Security Bill alone, the Opposition amendments would have cost an extra £2½ billion in a full year.
We saw earlier this month Labour overspending Mark III. On 10 July, the Labour Party issued its draft manifesto. It has not been mentioned much, but it is an essential part of the debate. It carries the process a good deal further. Item after item in the social security section as well as in other sections of that manifesto amount to massive proposals for additional public expenditure. A fairly modest example is the cost of restoring earnings-related supplement at £385 million a year. Another relatively modest example is to put up child benefit to £6 a week, costing £680 million a year extra.
To get on to the more ambitious proposals, it is proposed to establish a new disablement allowance varying with the


severity of the disablement. If that is intended to be at the current rate of war pensions and only for people who are 80 per cent. disabled or more, it will cost £½ billion a year. If "varying degrees of disablement" means 20 per cent. disablement upwards, it will cost up to £3 billion a year. On pensions, there is what is called a target. I take it that the word "target" is meant to be a more modest objective than a firm proposal. The target recommended is that the pension for a married couple should be half the gross average wage and that for a single person one-third of the gross average wage. At current prices that would cost an extra £7 billion a year.
This is only the beginning, of course. Those of us who study Labour Party terminology have to get used to a new phrase, the "rolling manifesto". In other words, we are to have a new version of this at least once a year. It means that we shall have three or four more of them between now and the next general election, each one no doubt raising the stakes, each one no doubt making more and more concessions to the militant Left, and each one no doubt promising more benefits costing even more money.
This is the Labour Party labelling itself the party of hyperinflation. It is no use the Opposition in a debate such as this pretending that they care about the pensioners or the chronic sick. It will be no use, tomorrow, their shedding crocodile tears over unemployment, because hyperinflation will be the mother and father of higher unemployment. The fact is that their recipe is a recipe of disaster for everyone, especially for the weakest members of our community.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.

Resolved.

That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.

That the draft Child Benefit (Up-Rating) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.

That the draft Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.

That the draft Social Security (Benefit) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Amendment Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.

That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.

That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this Houses on 17 July, be approved.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Motion made, and Question put,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1980 (S.I. 1980 No. 985), dated 14 July 1980, a copy of which was lai before this House on 17 July, be annulled.—[Mr. Orme.]

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 312.

See Division 430 in col. 1249.

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Employment Bill, the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Water (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Solicitors (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] and the Highways Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas Hamilton.]

EMPLOYMENT BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 6

DISMISSAL RELATING TO TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 8, line 11, at end insert—
(3E) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3B) and of section 58A (2) whether a person belongs to a class of employees, any restriction of the class by reference to membership (or objection to membership) of a trade union shall be disregarded.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment will ensure that, where there is to be a ballot on the introduction of a closed shop, existing non-union employees cannot be disfranchised by defining the class of employees entitled to vote by reference to membership of a trade union.
The introduction of a closed shop is of central concern to all those in the grades of employment to be covered, and they should all have the opportunity to vote on its introduction. It should not be possible to gerrymander the ballot so that those who may not wish to join the closed shop have no opportunity to vote against it.
The amendment provides that in determining for the purposes of closed shop legislation contained in the new subsection (3B) of section 58 of the 1978 Act and the new section 58A (2) whether a person belongs to the relevant class of employees any restriction of the class by reference to membership or objection to membership of a trade union shall be disregarded.
The amendment was introduced in the light of a ballot held by the Central regional council, Stirling, and I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member

for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) for information about that. It was raised during Question Time last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay).
Had the closed shop been introduced, it is possible that promotion and other employment advantages could have come to depend on membership of the closed shop, while new employees would have been encouraged to join, thus isolating and disadvantaging non-union members who had never been consulted. Fortunately, in the event, NALGO members who were balloted turned down the proposal in a 75 per cent. poll by 686 votes to 548.
We believe that this is an important amendment to the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Harold Walker: This amendment is yet another attempt to weaken trade union organisation and at the same time further to weaken organised collective bargaining. At present, an employer and a union can voluntarily enter into a union membership agreement for any such class of employees as they may mutually agree. As the Lord Advocate said when moving the amendment in another place, the 1974 Act says that the class
may be so identified by reference to any characteristics whatsoever".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 1980; Vol. 411, c. 956.]
Yet it is now proposed that this should be restricted, in so far as a union membership agreement in future cannot be defined by reference to trade union membership.
Frankly, I find it difficult to understand the Government's reasoning. Throughout the proceedings—[Interruption.] I did not know that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) knew so much about these matters that he could sit in his place and squawk so late at night. If he listened, he might learn something.
I find it difficult to understand the Government's reasoning, because throughout the proceeds on the Bill they and their supporters have attacked union membership agreements. Among other things, they argued that they lead to people being coerced against their will into trade union membership. But now they


wish to prevent an employer and a union from entering into a mutually satisfactory arrangement which would leave out the people who apparently do not wish to join a union.
As it left this House, the Bill strengthened the hand of the non-unionist and, indeed, the anti-trade unionist It now returns from another place giving power to the non-unionist and the anti-trade unionist to interfere in collective bargaining arrangements that are sought to be made between an employer and union members. It is no less worse that this sort of provision takes industrial relations more and more down the road of legal intervention, which inevitably leads directly to the courts. The Secretary of State's step by step approach increasingly takes us away from voluntarism and common sense agreement between management and men, and increasingly towards a more legalistic regulation of collective bargaining.
Their Lordships share with the Government a lack of understanding of the real nature of shop floor bargaining, and I ask the House to reject these proposals.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 228.

See Division 431 in col. 1253

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9

CONTRIBUTION IN RESPECT OF COMPENSATION

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 10, line 43, at end insert—
Indemnity in respect of union membership clauses.
76B.—(1) If in proceedings before an industrial tribunal on a complaint against an employer under section 67 the employer claims that—

(a) he and another person (in this section and in section 76C called "the contractor") were parties to a contract requiring that work done by employees of his for the purposes of the contract should be done only by employees who were members of trade unions or of a particular trade union.



(b) the complainant could not, consistently with that requirement, be employed on that work,
(c) the employer had requested the contractor to consent to the employment of the complainant on that work notwithstanding that requirement,
(d) the contractor had witheld his consent,
(e) apart from the work to which that requirement (or any similar requirement under other contracts to which the employer was a party) related, the employer had no work available which was suitable for the complainant to do, and
(f) the employer would not have dismissed the complainant but for that requirement,

then, subject to subsection (2), the employer may before the hearing of the complaint require the contractor to be joined, or in Scotland sisted, as a party to the proceedings.

(2) An employer may not by virtue of this section require more than one person to be joined, or in Scotland sisted, in proceedings in respect of any complaint.

(3) Where a person has been joined, or in Scotland sisted, as a party to proceedings before an industrial tribunal by virtue of subsection (1), and the tribunal—

(a) makes an award of compensation under section 68 (2) or 71 (2) (a) or (b), but
(b) finds that the claim of the employer (as specified in subsection (1)) is well-founded,

the tribunal shall order that person to pay to the employer an amount equal to the amount of that compensation.
Contribution in respect of indemnity under section 76B.

76C.—(1) If in the proceedings referred to in section 76B the contractor claims that he was induced to withhold the consent referred to in subsection (1) of that section by pressure which a trade union or other person exercised on him by calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike or other industrial action, or by threatening to do so, the contractor may before the hearing of the complaint require the person who he claims exercised the pressure to be joined, or in Scotland sisted, as a party to the proceedings.

(2) Where any person has joined, or in Scotland sisted, as a party to proceedings before an industrial tribunal by virtue of subsection (1), and the tribunal—

(a) makes an order under section 76B, but
(b) finds that the claim of the contractor (as specified in subsection (1)) is well founded,

the tribunal may make an order requiring that person to pay to the contractor a contribution in respect of the contractor's liability to the employer by virtue of the order under section 76B.

(3) The amount of any contribution ordered to be paid under this section in respect of any such liability shall be such as the tribunal considers to be just and equitable in the circumstances, and many constitute a complete indemnity."

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment relates to union labour-only clauses. These clauses bind an employer who agrees to provide, say, bricklaying services on a site, when the contractor requires that he put only union labour on to the site and economic pressures force him to agree. The amendment provides an additional right for an employer who faces an unfair dismissal complaint which results from a contractor's refusal to lift such a contractual requirement. It makes a valuable inroad into what is a most unfair and undesirable practice.
New section 76B will enable the employer in the circumstances specified to require the contractor to be joined as a party to the proceedings. The contractor may then be required by the tribunal to pay the employer the cost of any compensation awarded. There must, as a condition, be no other work suitable for the worker which the employer can offer him and the employer must show that he would not have dismissed the worker otherwise.
New section 76C provides that if the contractor in turn claims that he was induced to withhold his consent to a nonunion worker being employed by pressure put on him by a union or other person calling or threatening to take industrial action, he may require the person he claims exerted the pressure to be joined as a party to the proceedings as well. That person may then be ordered by the tribunal to pay to the contractor up to the full amount of any sum the contractor has been ordered to pay.
Concern about such union labour only clauses was expressed on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and was expressed by certain of their Lordships in another place. The amendment will discourage the practice of contracts requiring union labour only to be employed, and it will protect the position of an employer upon whom such a contract might be imposed. Without the amendment, an employer might, to avoid defaulting on a contract

which contained a union labour only clause, sack valued and blameless members of his work force who were not union members.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister explain why his hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), on Report, having moved new clause 10 and the Government having not only rejected but advised their supporters to reject that new clause, he is now standing on his head and presumably is about to advise his right hon. and learned Friends to stand on their heads by this time going into the opposite Lobby?

Mr. Mayhew: I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to use, not to stand on, their heads. The new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was different in its effect. Its effect would have been to render such clauses void. On that occasion I advised the House that it would be impolitic to do that at that stage because it would leave unanswered what sanction there would be. Until we had the opportunity to review completely the immunity of trade unions, it would have been unwise to accept the new clause.
This amendment provides a remedy for an employer. The trouble is that an employer may find himself at the sharp end of a claim for unfair dismissal compensation by a worker whom he has sacked in order not to lose a valuable contract, yet he would be unable to avail himself of the protection which the other clauses give to an employer in these circumstances because he would not, for example, have been able to hold a ballot.
Therefore, the effect of the clause is that an employer may say to his client, the contractor "Very well, you have secured this agreement in the contract that I have made with you, but I now ask you to waive it, to lift this requirement." If the contractor says "No, I shall not lift it," and if the worker who is not a trade union member then gets the sack and brings a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal, under the provisions of this amendment it will be open to the employer to join the contractor in the suit and say "This is your fault," and to say to the industrial tribunal" This is the reality of the position. Let any compensation for unfair dismissal be paid by the contractor."

Mr. John Page: I am following my hon. and learned Friend as closely as I can in his interesting and lucid explanation. Does it mean that the valued and blameless employee has to be dismissed before any part of this new clause comes into matters? Is there nothing to stop the chap from being dismissed except the threat on the other party that if such an employee were to be dismissed he would be joined? Would this apply to a lorry driver delivering goods at a particular destination?

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters. It applies to any worker who faces the threat of dismissal because his employer has entered into a contractual requirement that he will provide only union members to work upon the site, so it applies to any worker of any class.
My hon. Friend is right in the supposition in the first part of his question, but that applies also to the closed shop generally. Under the provisions of the Bill there is only further protection to an employee who gets the sack because he is not a member of a union where a closed shop agreement exists. This Bill does not provide security of tenure for him in his job. It simply provides him with compensation on the basis of unfair dismissal where the present law gives him none.
That is the position which we are seeking here to build upon in the case of union labour only clauses. The difficulty for his employer in these circumstances is that the employer is not able to hold a ballot to see whether there is massive support from those whom a union membership agreement would affect, and yet he is liable to have to pay compensation for unfair dismissal to the worker whom he sacks simply because the main contractor will not relieve him from the contractual clause which he has entered into.
What this clause does—I am sorry that it is complicated, but it is necessarily so—is to say to the employer "If you have sacked someone because you have felt obliged to do so. you would not have sacked him otherwise, but you have had your arm twisted by the contractor with whom you are in contractual relationships. If you would not have sacked him otherwise and there is no other work that you can give him that is suitable for him,

very well, you may join the contractor in the proceedings and say to the tribunal 'It is all his fault. Please make him pay the compensation'."
That is what the clause does. Similarly, if the contractor in turn is able to say "I would have liked to have released the employer from the terms of this contractual provision, but I am afraid that it was the trade union organiser who twisted my arm and said "No, you may not do so'," he in turn may be joined.

Mr. Stan Crowther: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: I think that the House wants me to get on. I have given way twice.
I have done my best to explain the provisions of the clause, which provide a necessary protection. I shall be happy to reply if further points are raised.
I commend this important amendment to the House. I believe it to be desirable.

Mr. Harold Walker: As the Minister reminded us, we are on familiar ground, because apparently the amendment sets out to achieve what the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) sought in his new clauses that we debated on Report on 22 April, although it appears from comments passed in another place that the whole thing was triggered by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers.
It is worth looking at what the Government said when, admittedly seeking to achieve the same objective by a different route, we debated the new clauses on 22 April. The Minister then told the House:
I am not persuaded that legislation on the lines of new clauses 10 and 11 would be either effective or desirable.
I recognise that he was talking about rather differently worded provisions, but I repeat that they set out to achieve the same objective, as was made absolutely clear by Lord Orr-Ewing and by Earl De La Warr, and were triggered by the same thought processes. The Minister added:
We should look first to voluntary action because the experience of making closed shop agreements void in the 1971 Act does not lead us to go headlong into making new legislation providing that a certain approach should be unlawful. Making an undesirable condition void does not necessarily get rid of the undesirable influence that it is intended to exert. I


do not think that it would do so in this instance.
Later the Minister said—and I hope that the House will note this:
The new clause could increase pressure upon employers not to use contractors at all, and that would help no one".
If that reasoning was valid then, it is no less valid today. The hon. and learned Gentleman owes it to the House to ex-plan the Government's U-turn.
The Minister also said on 22 April:
we cannot at the moment accept the argument that there is a case for amending the law—[Official Report, 22 April 1980; Vol. 983, c. 379·82.]
That "at the moment" was three months ago. In three months the Government have been able to stand the whole argument on its head. On that occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman was supported in the Division Lobby by 200 of his hon. Friends and some hon. Members from the Opposition Benches. I wonder what they will do tonight. Will they stand on their heads like the Minister, like performing animals in a circus? Those who voted with the Minister in April, in line with his advice then, should think of the ridiculous posture that they will be adopting tonight when they troop dutifully through the Lobby, having gone the other way on 22 April.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell the House what his party proposes to do to protect employees dismissed in the circumstances with which we are dealing?

Mr. Walker: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is with us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if the House really wishes it, I shall set out at length the Labour Party's views on the closed shop. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman, and some other Conservative hon. Members who have not participated in our proceedings on many occasions so far, but who wander in late at night, that some of us sat through 32 Committee sittings, for about 120 hours. These matters were debated at length in Committee, where we set out our view on the closed shop, as I have done so often from both sides of the House.

Mr. George Park: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of impertinence for a lawyer, of all people, to criticise a closed shop?

Mr. Walker: Indeed it is. We have repeatedly said that the law has remained essentially the same since the Industrial Revolution. It has been so in relation to closed shops. We believe that that is the correct position. We have asked for union membership agreements to continue to be applied and practised in the flexible and tolerant fashion that has always prevailed. The intervention of the law in such issues, and in many of the other issues covered by the Bill, will harm industrial relations. It will not provide an answer to the human problem.

Mr. John Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is one of those who will stand on his head tonight and who will go into the other Lobby? Will my right hon. Friend explain to the Conservative Party that the clause concerns the protection of those employed in lump labour? They do not pay their income tax or national insurance contributions. That appears to be in line with the philosophy of the Tory Party.

Mr. Walker: No doubt my hon. Friend will pursue that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he catches your eye.
The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), whether or not he is "hon. and learned", is one of those who has a vested interest in allowing the law to intervene in industrial relations. His primary concern is not the well-being of industrial relations but the well-being of lawyers. He will probably do very well if the law intervenes. He probably knows more about the legalistic terms involved than he knows about the problems of the shop floor.
The House should be more concerned about doing what it can to abate the problems that exist in industrial relations. We should be wondering how we can mitigate and solve them. We shall not solve them by means of the law. Lawyers have a curious idea that any problem can be solved by enacting a Bill. That


is one of the absurd ideas that persists among Conservative Members.
When the Under-Secretary referred to "sites", I thought that he gave us a revealing insight into the Government's limited approach. Earl De La Warr confirmed the Government's limited approach when he spoke in the House of Lords about curbing the activities of Left-wing local authorities. Conservative Members should realise that when the House enacts a measure that is aimed at one specific issue its effects are often wider than anticipated. This measure will affect local authorities—including not only Left-wing authorities, but Conservative-controlled ones—which have good reason for insisting that a stipulation should be inserted in the contract stating that it should be carried out by union labour.
Some Conservative-controlled local authorities are anxious to avoid undercutting properly fixed rates, and the terms and conditions of employment that have been rightly set by national agreements. They are anxious to ensure the quality of work. One way of achieving that is to ensure that the contract is carried out by properly qualified labour. Often the only way of doing that is to make certain that the labour has the appropriate trade union qualification.
The problem is not limited to local authorities. Many public bodies are involved. A whole range of public bodies—British Aerospace, the National Coal Board and so on—put these stipulations in their contracts. Furthermore, this practice is widespread in the private sector as well.
A "fair list" system is operated by the union TASS. That is a very proper system. When an employer, faced with an overload of work has to secure the cooperation of the trade union in sub-contracting that work in order to avoid taking on additional labour that may be surplus to his requirements, TASS has this arrangement which enables that employer to sub-contract. The price of that cooperation is very often that it shall go to a trade union sub-contracting house. The Federation of Engineering Design Consultants co-operates with that union in operating what is called a "fair list".
This amendment is likely to undermine that system, and with what consequences?
In future, after the first time this is tested in relation to the "fair list", the union will tell the employer that it does not agree to a certain sub-contractor. I cannot see who can possibly benefit from that.
Furthermore, let us suppose that a subcontractor is on the "fair list" and has its entire work force as members of the appropriate trade union in order to continue for to qualify for membership of the list finds that it has a vacancy. It advertises, and a man comes along who is not a union member, or who refuses to join. In the event of the employer refusing to employ that man because he is afraid of being disqualified from the "fair list", would that individual have grounds for claiming that he had been constructively dismissed? Within the Employment Protection Act there is a provision for constructive dismissal to be construed where the individual has not necessarily been in employment. The Minister must explain that point to us.
Perhaps the Minister would also explain the position where less formal arrangements exist than those that are specifically written into a contract. This is often the case. There is no formal agreement written into any contract, but there is a long-standing and traditional understanding that work will not go out of a particular establishment other than to trade union labour. What will the position be in relation to those understandings and arrangements which fall short of a formal contract provision?
At what point will those who may be joined for the purposes of compensation be informed and allowed to participate in the proceedings of the tribunal? As I understand it, the person who has been dismissed will lodge a complaint to the tribunal against his employer. If the tribunal upholds the claim of unfair dismissal, the employer may then be required to pay compensation or part of the compensation. In his defence, the employer may then invoke the pressure that was applied by another party, who can then be joined for the purposes of compensation. But it seems to me that the action in the first place would be between the applicant, who claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed, and his employer. They would decide substantially the merits of a dismissal. It is only when the fact of the dismissal, fair or unfair, has


been determined by the tribunal that the question of compensation arises.
Is it at that stage that the contractor will be told that it has been decided that there has been an unfair dismissal, and he will either have to pay or explain why he should not pay part of the price? Is it at that stage that the unions—or the shop stewards who originally said "If you put that work out to that firm, the lads will come out"—will be told that they may have to pay compensation? Will this happen after a decision has been taken on the dismissal being fair or unfair? Will they be told that without being able to put forward a word in their own defence? At what stage will they be able to say that they want to contest the entire proceedings and that a lot of nonsense has been talked before the tribunal? The problem is that the tribunal has made its decision by then.

Mr. Mayhew: The position is exactly the same as it was when I explained it to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee in relation to joinder. Applications to join must be made before the hearing. If he looks at the amendment, he will see that that applies in the case of the employer, who must make his application to require the contractor to be joined before the hearing of the complaint. Under new section 76B, if a contractor wishes to say that he has acted only under pressure from a trade union, he must make the application—require the joinder—before the hearing of the complaint. It all has to take place before the beginning of the hearing. Once those parties have been joined, they may take a full part in the hearing. It is exactly like third party proceedings in the civil jurisdiction of the courts. It is intended that all the relevant issues should be tried at one and the same time.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for putting that on record. It will undoubtedly help those who may have to deal with these complicated matters. However, it leads one to speculate about the complexities facing a tribunal which simultaneously has to make a judgment about the substantive merits of an application for unfair dismissal and deal with people who are at one or two stages removed from the incident that led to the unfair dismissal

and who are contemplating the possibility of having to pay compensation.

Mr. Greville Janner: The matter goes even further. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is right, the contractor has to decide whether to bring the union into the proceedings at the stage when he is joined. Before any evidence has been heard, if he chooses to be mad enough to bring the union in, he has to introduce the union before he finds out even whether he will be held liable. Is that not the most ludicrous method of conducting any aspect of industrial relations?

Mr. Walker: I almost entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I dissent on one small point. If, when the application is initiated and originally heard, the contractor brings in a third party—and it will not be the union—that will, in effect, prejudice his defence. He will thereby be partially acquiescing in the complaints before the tribunal. If he felt on absolutely firm grounds, he would not consider it necessary to bring in a third party.
Trade unions are mentioned in new section 76B. However, it is clear that it is not the union that will have to pay if compensation is awarded but the person or persons who exercised the pressure—the shop steward, or whoever, it may be. It may be full indemnity. At the top end of the scale that could mean tens of thousands of pounds. If the procedure provided for in the amendments came about, and at the end of that complex road a shop steward found himself before a tribunal with someone claiming the full amount of damages after long service with a contractor—and we must be careful about the difference between "contractor" and "contractee"—he may have to pay compensation of several thousands of pounds.
What will happen if that individual refuses to pay or cannot pay? I do not know many shop stewards who have thousands of pounds in the bank. The Tory Member who is sniggering obviously has no experience of the shop floor. Such Members betray their ignorance of such matters and of how ordinary working people live. The Tories who are sneering now reveal more to us late at night than


the whole Conservative Party reveals to the country in a month.

11 pm

I ask Tory Members to contemplate what may happen when a shop steward has thousands of pounds of damages awarded against him. The Government might usefully reflect on the Pentonville Five and hope that they still have the Official Solicitor lurking in the wings with a big bag of cash to bail them out, as he bailed out the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) after the Industrial Relations Act.

The Government are getting themselves into a hideous muddle, but much more important for the country are the serious consequences of such lunacy on industrial relations. The Government are more concerned with weakening and undermining the trade union movement, regardless of the consequences for industrial relations and collective bargaining, than they are with trying to get the country back on its feet.

I hope that the Conservative Members who heeded the Under-Secretary's advice on 22 April will search their hearts and decide that they ought, in consistency, to vote with us to turf the amendment back down the Corridor where it belongs.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: The Under-Secretary must be glad that his task on the Bill is drawing to an end. He has had a long long stint, as have I and some of my hon. Friends. However, long as the stint has been, and tired of the Bill as some of us may have been from time to time, it is necessary to probe the purposes and consequences of the amendment.
I say with all the respect that the Under-Secretary knows that I have for him that he was a little disingenuous in his reply to the intervention of my hon. Friend for Newton (Mr. Evans) when he tried to draw a distinction between the Lords amendment and new clauses 10 and 11 that came before us on Report. Although they are different in text, the purpose of the amendment is identical to the purpose of the new clauses and the effect of the amendment will be identical to the effect of the new clauses. The clauses were introduced, as was the amendment—as their Lordships frankly admitted—in order to prevent local authorities from stipulating that contractors

should use union labour. A noble Earl referred to Left-wing authorities, but all sorts of authorities carry out that practice. It works well and local authority members are practical people who do what works well. The purpose of the amendment is to bring that practice to an end. The effect will be to put in a difficult position local authorities and other organisations that give out contracts.
The Under-Secretary gave the game away when, in referring to contractors, he talked about sites, as though the only contracts that are ever given are contracts for buildings. In fact, local authorities give out contracts not only for buildings but for the supply of haulage services, school furniture, beds for old people's homes, toilet paper and all sorts of equipment and services. All these are contracts. Why did the hon. and learned Gentleman and his noble Friends talk about sites all the time?
The giveaway is that the Government have brought forward this amendment entirely at the behest of the building trades organisations which have demanded some recompense for the money which they put. directly or indirectly, into the funds of the Conservative Party at the time of the last general election.
What would be the attitude if the boot were on the other foot? Let us suppose that a Labour Government introduced legislation compelling local authorities to contract only with people using trade union labour and which prohibited local authorities giving out contracts to anyone with non-union labour. If this House passed that legislation and it went to the other place, there would be so many of their Lordships bursting blood vessels in their indignation that the Floor of the Chamber would be awash with blue blood.
If any such proposal came before this House, I would vote against it, because I believe in the autonomy of local government. It is a passion which I share with the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). It is a demand which is often made in weekend speeches by Government supporters, but they do not carry it out in their actions in this House. I would vote against compelling local authorities to use or not to use trade union labour or non-union labour. But one has only to seek to establish the attitude of hon. Members to legislation


doing the opposite of this to see how wrong this legislation is as well.
Although this amendment is directed at local authorities, it is not only local authorities which use contractors. Let us suppose that the Trades Union Congress wanted to extend Congress House. Would the TUC be put in a position in which it could not specify that the contractor it called in to do the building extension must use trade union labour? The proposition is nonsensical.
There are two other very bad effects of this amendment in practice—and I am concerned only with the practice. [Interruption.] The answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who has obviously dined very well—and I envy him because I did not get time—[Interruption.] He should be able to take all that roast beef without it abasing his post-prandial manners. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that no one can point to any difficulties which have arisen under the present system. If he has an example, I shall be prepared to listen—assuming that he can give it. I understand why the hon. Gentleman remains seated. I repeat that no one has given any evidence to suggest that the present arrangements do not work, and that is what matters.
I am concerned about two practical disadvantages which may flow from this amendment—[Interruption.] The first is that it will increase the price of contracts put out by local authorities—[Interruption.] The reason, quite simply, is that before a contractor takes on a contract he will put into his estimates a factor to protect him against a claim under this clause. If he is a prudent man, he will allow for all possible costs which may arise—[Interruption.]
I have been here a long time, and I can take a lot of sedentary interruptions. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Grantham is dripping away like a leaking tap. Can he be called to order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If it is of any assistance to the hon. Gentleman, I have heard nothing that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has said.

Mr. Mikardo: You have the consolation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have

missed nothing of substance. You have missed only the irritation that I have experienced from being so close to the hon. Gentleman.
Any prudent contractor allows in his estimates for contingencies which might add to the cost. One result of the amendment is that people will quote higher figures to local authorities. The Secretary of State is trying to get local authorities to cut expenditure, but the amendment will increase it.
The amendment will prevent much desirable contracting and sub-contracting. The TASS arrangement is not the only one. Many private employers, including many large firms, have agreed arrangements with unions represented in their establishments that they will not subcontract work normally done in those establishments except with the agreement of the unions. It the amendment allows contracts to be given to non-union firms—if there is an incentive to do so, to avoid a penalty—the trade unions will oppose sub-contracting. They will say "If that means that you cannot meet a promised delivery, that is your lookout, not ours." The amendment could have a bad effect in two ways.
I know of no great difficulties, under the existing arrangements, of any serious problems which the amendment will cure. Its motives are unworthy. If only for that reason, the House should reject it.

Mr. Crowther: I have never understood during the passage of the Bill why a party which allegedly believes in small companies should insist on pushing through legislation which damages them, as the amendment will. It will lead to pressure from unions—in private companies as well as nationalised industries—for more work which now goes out to contract to be done by direct labour. That will happen in the British Steel Corporation and many other large organisations.
Small firms which now exist on contracts from such large firms will be in increasing difficulty because of the danger of someone being taken to court or before a tribunal because of the amendment. More small firms will go out of business as a result. Yet the Tory Party is supposed to be the champion of small business. I do not know what its motive is for this action.

The vast majority of employees in small companies are trade unionists. One or two employees might not be members of trade unions. Contracts are possible because trade unionists are involved and no difficulty arises. However, a risk is taken. A company could send someone who is not a trade union employee. The company could dismiss the employee, go to the tribunal and join the BSC or another organisation in the action. The shop stewards could be joined at the second stage. Risks are inherent. The only way to avoid the risk is to say "Sorry, but you are no longer on our list for consideration for contracts." Nothing is more certain than that that will happen. The small companies which do not have 100 per cent. trade union membership will be put out of business as a result of the provision. It is foolish.

The Minister should explain why it is reasonable to bring in something new in English law. I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friends will tell me if I am wrong. Is it not new that someone who has entered freely into a contract should, at a later stage, be able to join another party in an action taken against him because that other party has declined to vary the terms of the contract? That is what is being done. That seems to be completely new in English law.

Let us consider the case of Mr. A who signs a contract with Mr. B, who says that he employs only union labour and that if that is not in the contract he will be in difficulty. Mr. A says "Fair enough. That is a clause of the contract and I shall use only trade union labour." If Mr. A then dismisses someone because of that condition, which is freely accepted, and if that dismissed person takes him to the tribunal, is it not a revolutionary concept in English law that he can go to the other party to the contract and demand that the contract be varied or that the other party accepts liability for total indemnity? I should like to hear justification for that. The second party can then join a third party—Mr. C—who has induced him to take that action.

What right will the contractor have to contest that the allegation is unfair? That is far from clear. I am not sure that he will have any right. I am not sure that the person that he then joins—

the shop steward or the branch secretary—will have that right. The person who has the right to argue that the dismissal is not unfair is the person who dismissed the employee. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps that can be contested by the second and third parties. It appears that all that they can contest is that they should be subject to sharing the penalty. That is an extremely important point. If people find themselves liable to pay large amounts of compensation—we were assured in Committee that it could amount to more than £14,000—they must have the right to contest the allegation that the dismissal is unfair and, therefore, leads to compensation. It is not merely a question whether they should pay compensation.

I do not see any provision in the Lords amends that give such parties the right to demand the production of evidence about whether the dismissal was unfair—evidence that can be only in the hands of the person who ordered the dismissal.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Crowther: I shall be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman's speech in due course. I am more interested in hearing the reply of the Under-Secretary. It is an extremely important matter.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) is not giving way. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is well aware of the procedure.

Mr. Crowther: I sat down because you rose, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not because the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) rose. I shall be happy to hear his contribution to the debate in due course.
I want to get home my point so that there is no doubt about it on the part of the Under-Secretary. My experience of him, with the greatest respect, is that he does not always reply to the points that I put to him in debate. I want him to reply to this point. [Interruption.] I assume that the Under-Secretary will reply to the debate. If his hon. Friends will shut up so that he can hear my point, I may receive a reply. I wish to


know what guarantee there is that a person who is joined in the action as contractor, and then a person who is joined in the action by the contractor—presumably a trade union official—will be able to demand the production of evidence from the original employer which relates to whether the person was unfairly dismissed. I see nothing in the Lords amendment that guarantees them that right.
Let us not imagine that there are not circumstances in which a person is dismissed by agreement. An employer who is happy to get rid of a certain employee, and an employee who is quite happy to be got rid of, knowing that he will pick up substantial amounts of compensation from someone else—not his employer—may depart on the pretext that the contractor has inserted a clause in the contract and therefore he has to go. That could happen. Let us not pretend that it could not. If Conservative Members lived in the real world of industry, they would know that that happens. What guarantee is there that that a backstairs arrangement between an employer and an employee to obtain a large amount of compensation from someone else cannot happen? The way to prevent that is by guaranteeing the right of the person joined in the action to demand by subpoena all the evidence relating to the action. I see nothing in the Lords amendment that guarantees that right. I fear that it is wide open to fiddles of that sort.
I should like replies to those points. I hope that the Under-Secretary was able to hear what I said above the uproar created by his hon. Friends, who do not know anything about the subject and who come here only to cause a tumult in the Chamber, and that he will reply to it.

Mr. Greville Janner: Working out what is in the amendment, we have to look at two questions. The first is why it has been brought in, and the second is how it is to work. It has clearly been brought in as a further step towards getting rid of union membership agreements. It is a further attempt to curb the closed shop, which the Government believe to be wrong.
In referring, as the Minister has so often, to the freedom of people not to belong to trade unions, he has failed to

refer to the conflicting freedom of people not to work with those who do not belong to trade unions. But there is a much more real point that the Minister misses. If we talk to practical managers in industry who have to deal with the problems that the Bill is creating and will create, we hear from them immediately that the vast majority prefer to work in a closed shop. The majority of managers in our industry will not like this clause, whether it be section 76A, as it will be, or section 76C that we are discussing now.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will it be in the hon. and learned Gentleman's next book?

Mr. Janner: If hon. Members read my book, they might know something. Meanwhile, as the book on what we are discussing tonight is yet to be written, perhaps we can get rid of at least one chapter by getting rid of this clause. It is a bad clause not only because the philosophy is wrong but because it will not and cannot work in practice. The reason that it cannot work in practice is, first, because the unions will not have it and, secondly, because the managers will not have it.
What is the reality of the clause and of the one that is tied to it? An employer dismisses an employee who refuses to join the trade union; therefore, under pressure from the union, the dismissal has taken place, and Parliament is now to give to the employer first the right to join the union—which it has been seeking to oblige—in proceedings and to claim an indemnity from that same union under whose pressure, it is said, the employee was dismissed. In other words, an employer who has acted under pressure from the union in dismissing the person is then being invited to seek from the union contribution or indemnity.

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. and learned Gentleman has got it wrong, and I intervene only in order to correct the matter at an early stage. He has said that the employer has sacked his man under pressure from the union. The amendment is concerned with an employer who has sacked his worker under pressure from his client—say, the local authority—and it is only in those circumstances that the amendment applies.

Mr. Janner: If the Minister had done me the courtesy of listening, he would


have realised that we started with new section 76A and we move on. It is not possible to debate what is happening to contractors without seeing what happens first to the employers, because, as the Minister said, the same protection is being provided for the contractors under the amendment as was provided originally in the Bill to the original employer. That is what I am talking about, and we should start at the beginning, otherwise we shall never see the ridiculous nature of the end to which we are being driven.
The position is very clear. An employer is being invited to join in proceedings and claim contribution and indemnity from a union under whose pressure it is said that the employee was dismissed. The amendment carries the matter one stage further. It says that an employer who dismisses an employee because he is under pressure from a contractor who insists, in a very wicked way, on complying with his agreement is then to be able to join the contractor and to claim an indenmity from the contractor. The contractor is then being invited to join the union and claim from the union—or, indeed, from the steward or the person in the union—an indemnity. New section 76A brings in the employer, and the employer's right to join the union or the person in the union. The amendment takes it one stage further and says that the union is joined not by the original employer but by the contractor. In either event it is nonsensical. No employer in his right mind would dream of destroying his business in the way that the Government are inviting him to do.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Then what is there to worry about?

Mr. Janner: There is a great deal to worry about in putting idiocy on to the statute book. If the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) continues to interrupt my speech as he has interrupted previous speeches, his discourtesy will be equalled only by the extent of his ignorance.
This is an important clause. It is designed to prevent contractors from complying with agreements into which they have freely entered with employers, agreements under which union labour will be employed. It is designed to enable more employers to join more unions in proceedings.
The worst feature about the amendment is not so much what it states but its effect, which will be to invite industrial trouble. That is the main fault with the Bill. Most of the clauses will not work in practice because neither the management of industry nor the unions will agree to its working or will enforce it or apply it.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said, the Bill will invite people to flout the law. My right hon. Friend made some unhappy remarks about lawyers in his otherwise excellent speech. Some of us felt rather strongly about that. Those of us who are involved in the law believe profoundly that the rule of law should be preserved. We preserve the rule of law, not by creating statutes that are unenforceable and with which no one will comply, not by creating statutes inviting people to assume the crown of martyrdom, not by making rules that people will inevitably flout, especially if they are on the extremes of our society, not by making rules creating the situation of the Pentonville Five, who deliberately put themselves into prison to become martyrs, but by making sensible laws that those in industry will be able to implement and to use to create better industrial relations.
We are discussing law that will not be welcomed by management any more than by unions. The Government are introducing it in a doctrinaire effort to implement procedures that I believe they cannot understand properly in their industrial context. If they understood them, they surely would not introduce them in such a way.
This is a bad amendment to a bad clause in a bad Bill, and it should be rejected.

Mr. Ron Leighton: In considering the amendment, we should consider some of the current industrial practices that are accepted by all and have become traditional. Some firms and unions have accepted that work should be contracted out only to union only sub-contractors. That arrangement is presumably to be threatened and disrupted.
The National Coal Board sub-contracts work. It is understood that that work should be done only by union labour. What would happen if an NCB sub-contractor used non-union labour? That


would immediately bring a confrontation with the National Union of Mineworkers. is what the Conservative Party wants.
Why is it that union only sub-contractors are specified? It is to eliminate the undercutting of agreements. Surely that is reasonable. Even the Conservative Party should consider that reasonable.
The Federation of Engineering Design Companies is part of the engineering industry. It is accepted that if there is an extra work load involving Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace, the work can be contracted out to sub-contractors who will use only union labour. That is to stop agencies using bogus self-employment that produces lump labour systems designed primarily to evade income tax and to secure tax concessions. Those are practices that create serious problems for industry and unfair competion for companies that are in the FEDC.
The overwhelming majority of personnel who are engaged on a self-employed basis are not genuinely self-employed. They claim to be self-employed only for the purpose of evading the normal obligations of employed persons and for claiming certain immediate advantages such as allowances not available to employed persons—schedule D rather than schedule E. Also, by registering as a limited company, individuals in the past have evaded tax scrutiny, and such tax evasion is borne by the rest of the community.
This can lead to widespread evasion. It can lead to the breaking of agreements on hours of work, holiday pay and redundancy agreements. We might also note that the agencies employing these people contribute nothing to the training of technical staff and have no apprenticeship schemes.
In the engineering industry self-employed personnel could not be members of the union, and so one way of ensuring that they were bona fide was to check whether they had membership of the union. If the amendment goes through tonight, arrangements of this sort will be disrupted, and what will be the reaction of the union members to that? As my hon. Friends have said, they will take the attitude that work should not be contracted out at all, and I wonder whether that is what the Conservative party wants.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), who said that the Government have stood on their head, because this is the opposite of what the Secretary of State for Employment argued in Committee. I shall quote from what the right hon. Gentleman said. He started by saying:
I am going to stick reasonably close to some notes on this.
In other words, he wanted to be exact. He went on to say:
In drawing up the clause we paid particular and close attention to existing industrial relations practices and traditions. The clause is drafted as narrowly as possible …
We could, of course, have drawn a clause which would have been much wider and caught many more people but we were particularly worried, for example—this will come up, or could do, I suspect, in this debate—about trade union practices on building sites and so on where one often cannot get a group of union members to work alongside non-union members. That is why we had to draw it up in the way that we did.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
The clause does not make it unlawful for workers to refuse to work at the same place as someone who is not a union member. It does not make it unlawful for them to advise or warn their employer that they will not work with a non-member.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the TASS agreement, to which I referred earlier,
which deals with TASS and the agreements that TASS made and the fair lists that TASS has in a number of places, operating as it does with the Federation of Engineering and Design Companies.
Our view is that it will not interfere with the operation of fair lists, provided that the purpose of the fair list is not simply to force workers to join a trade union. The clause would not prevent industrial action by workers against their employer because he had contracted work—contracted work is important in this respect—to a firm or self-employed person that did not meet the requirements of the agreement. Only if the action was intended to compel such a firm's workers to join the union would it be unlawful.
The amendment is therefore unnecessary in the case of the TASS-FEDC agreement, and disputes about non-membership of a union are unlikely to arise in the area covered by the agreement because the fair list system is well established and the design companies operate post-entry closed shops as a requirement of the agreement.
In other words, they will have union labour only. [HON MEMBERS: "NO."] Let us have the facts. I want an answer.
This is what the Minister told us in Committee. I want to know what has caused the Secretary of State to stand on his head and to take a completely different view. The Secretary of State said:
I do not particularly care for the fair list system operated by TASS but I accept that it is an industrial practice, and one which I am not seeking to deal with in this clause or in any other clause of the Bill. … I repeat that we have drawn the clause in this manner, which is perhaps difficult to understand, specifically to seek to avoid some of the normal industrial practicices which are part of everyday industrial life, whether it be in a TASS agreement or the agreements that operate on many large contractors' sites in this country.
I end with these last few words from the right hon. Gentleman.
We are not seeking to abolish fair lists…. The way fair lists are entered into as a result of an agreement—as is the case with the TASS agreement—is something with which we all ought to be able to live in good industrial relations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 March 1980; c. 1569–74.]
The Secretary of State told use that this was traditional, something with which we ought to be able to live. What has changed his mind? Why do the Government stand on their head and move away from the sensible policy that the Secretary of State for Employment put to us in Committee? Why have they changed? Why do they bring forward proposals such as this which will disrupt industrial relations and will not work in practice?

Mr. Mayhew: This has been a depressing debate, because it has revealed yet again the depth of misunderstanding of the purpose of the clause.
I shall deal with the first point made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker)—that this represents a complete reversal of the Government's position on Report. I repeat that the new clause that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was quite different in its form and intent. Its purpose was to render void this type of contractual arrangement. I advised my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it because it would have led to great uncertainties. The clause made no provision for what sanction should be applied if somebody produced a void agreement and then sought to act upon it. It was uncertain and bad law.
Our purpose is clear. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester,

West (Mr. Janner) that we do not like the closed shop. The amendment reflects our dislike of it. We are not ashamed of that. The closed shop seeks to make compulsory that which should be voluntary, namely, the membership of a trade union. We seek to say "If you wish to make a contract with this type of clause in it, those who are responsible should pay the compensation." If a contractor insists that his sub-contractors shall have union labour only and does not accede to a request to lift that clause, the resulting compensation should be paid by whoever insisted upon it—namely, the contractor. That is all that the clause does.
I do not see where the great injustice or attack upon trade unionism lies there. But there is great harm under the existing law, particularly to small firms and to those whom they employ. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) asked: where is the advantage for small firms in the amendment? Small firms are obliged by the force of economic circumstances to enter into these contracts, although they do not want this clause. If a small firm finds that it is insisted upon and it has brought somebody on to a site for whom there is no other work, he not being a member of a trade union, is the firm to sack him? If it sacks him, it will have no answer to a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal. That may be a very substantial claim because he may be a very senior worker.
That is why it is important to relieve those employers of that peril by enabling them to say to the contractors "It is you who are insisting on this. You, then, pay the compensation." That is what is done.
11.45 pm
I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). He asked whether anyone could point to any difficulties under the present arrangements. It depends what one means by "difficulties". Under the present arrangement, there is difficulty surely for the worker who is sacked with no compensation at all. That is the consequence of the law passed by the previous Government. It casts some light on the approach of the hon. Gentleman and the Labour Party to these matters that he says that there is no difficulty under the present law.

Mr. Mikardo: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his unfailing courtesy in giving way. Can he tell me of one case in which a person has been sacked in these circumstances and for this reason?

Mr. Mayhew: If the hon. Gentleman will consult the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors he will find that so great is the pressure upon the federation that is imposed by the present law that it finds it a matter of the deepest concern.

Mr. Mikardo: One case?

Mr. Mayhew: I shall put it in this way. If the hon. Gentleman were to be right in what lies behind his question, what has he got to fear? If, on the other hand, he is wrong, surely it is an injustice which must be rectified.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster asked about a fair list. I shall detain the House by answering the questions that I have been asked. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that a non-union person who applied to an employer who intended to remain on the fair list could, on being told that he would not be employed because he was not a union member, claim constructive dismissal. This cannot be so because he was not an employee of that employer in the example given, so no question of dismissal, contractive or otherwise, would arise.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what part the contractor can take in these proceedings. He can take a full part. He can argue any issue that is relevant, and can also—and here is the question asked, I think, six times by the hon. Member for Rotherham who complained that I did not answer questions—take a full part in the question whether the dismissal was unfair in the first instance. That is the purpose or bringing him in before the hearing begins.

Mr. Crowther: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mayhew: I think that the House wants me to get on.
The hon. Member for Rotherham made another point. He asked whether it was a revolutionary principle in English law

that someone who has entered into a contract can then call upon his contractual partner to abandon it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to secure the immediate repeal of the Rent Acts. That is exactly what a tenant can do. He can enter into contract whereby he takes a lease for three months or any fixed term and immediately on the expiry of that term he can call upon the landlord to abandon that. He can cast aside the contractual obligation into which he has entered. There are many other illustrations in statute law. That is because Parliament has seen fit, in what it has thought, rightly or wrongly, to be the national interest, to override what people have agreed by way of contract.
I simply say that the principle of the closed shop is fundamentally alien to the concepts of English law. We are seeking here to mitigate the injustice in a manner that accords with industrial realities. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may wish us to go further. Indeed, I know that they do. But, in furtherance of what we believe to be a sensible and practical approach at present, we believe that it is right to say "Very well. Let these terms be negotiated, but let those who insist upon them being enforced pay the damage." That is in the interests of workers as well as of employers.
A small firm, knowing that the law is to continue in the form that the right hon. Gentleman's Government gave to it, will say "We are moving out of this business, because now it will be possible for us to be sued for unfair dismissal by our workers, and we shall not be able to avail ourselves of the protection that the Employment Act 1980 gives us." That is why it is necessary to be able to pass on the claim for compensation to those who really are behind it.
That is all that I want to say in reply to the questions that have been asked. This is an important provision, one that accords with industrial realities. I believe that their Lordships got to the root of the matter. They did not say "We shall make these things void and hope that they will go away." They will not, make them void simply by declaring them to be void. Justice requires that those who insist on enforcing these clauses should be made to pay for the compensation.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 230.

See Division 432 in column 1257

Question accordingly agreed to.

12 midnight

Clause 14

ACTION SHORT OF DISMISSAL RELATING TO TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 16, line 20, leave out "either"

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 6, in page 16, line 23, leave out from "58A" to end of line 28.

Mr. Harold Walker: It really is a bit much for the hon. and learned Member to think that we would agree to these amendments on the nod. When I saw these amendments on the Notice Paper I wondered what on earth they were all about. Then I learnt that the provisions that we are now removing were the subject of amendments by the Government on Report, taken on the nod without explanation. It is a bit much to have provisions put in a Bill without explanation, and then to have the same provisions subsequently taken out, also without explanation.
All that I can say is that if the Government are admitting dropping a clanger—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I should say "making an error"—in the first place and are now seeking to correct that error, we may well assume that they have done the same in many other cases. Indeed, I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are convinced that the Bill is littered with error upon error. If the Government had come clean and tabled other amendments to remove those other errors, we might not have detained the House.

Mr. Mikardo: If one does a U-turn, and then does a U-turn back over the U-turn, what shape is that? That is exactly what the Government have done.

Mr. Walker: It is what my young daughter calls the "Harpic operation", by which she means round the bend, whether U, S or N. We are entitled to know why the Government have gone round that bend. The hon. and learned Gentleman should do the decent thing and explain how the Government got themselves into the muddle. They have got themselves into a lot of muddles, but perhaps he will explain this one.

Mr. Mayhew: I hope that I am among the last to treat the House with discourtesy. Having read what has happened in another place, I thought that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would save the House a little time. However, he is perfectly right.
The provisions to be deleted by the amendment concern the position of new employers entering into areas where longstanding, industry-wide closed shops operate. It was originally intended that clause 6 should apply. The words to be deleted by the amendment would have been consequential on the provisions originally intended to be included in clause 6. It was decided, however, that special words were unnecessary in clause 6. Unfortunately, by an oversight, we neglected to delete the words. We are very versatile. We were able to include the words on the nod and are quite capable of taking them out on the nod—or so we thought.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman felt that my speech was a bit much. If anything, it was perhaps too little. That is the explanation. I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Clause 16

SECONDARY ACTION

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 19, line 8, leave out from "services" to first "an" in line 9 and insert "between any person and".

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
No. 8, in page 19, line 13, leave out "the recipient" and insert "or".
No. 9, in page 19, line 17, leave out "recipient" and insert:
"other party to the supply referred to in paragraph (a) above".

Mr. Prior: The amendments deal with an anomaly that Labour Members drew attention to when the clause was introduced. Before I explain their precise effect, it may assist the House if I explain the effect of clause 16 (4), which has been the source of some misconception about the extent to which it allows secondary action to be taken against an associated employer or an employer in dispute. Its effects are very limited. It provides for lawful secondary action against associated employers only in very special circumstances. Those are where the employer in dispute transfers work to an associated employer and the secondary action is directed against the work which is transferred.
The subsection does not therefore provide, as some have mistakenly believed, for the automatic extension of secondary action to any employer who is associated with the employer in dispute. It is even limited in its application to the associated employer who is accepting the transfer of work, because it does not allow secondary action that seeks principally to disrupt his normal business. It is only if the common ownership or control of two companies is used to transfer work from the company where there is a strike to another, so as to outflank the strike, that any question of lawful secondary action will arise. Even then it will have to be targeted on the transferred work and not directly on the normal business of the company. This is therefore a narrow provision, but its actions would have been regarded as unfair.
Turning to the effect of the amendments, subsection (4), as originally drafted, gave rise to an anomaly. The limited scope for secondary action, which I have described, was accorded to employees of a customer of the associated company to

whom the work was transferred. That customer would usually have been a customer of the employer in dispute. However, subsection (4) as drafted did not make a similar provision for secondary action by the employees of a supplier to the associated employer. That is the anomaly to which hon. Gentlemen drew attention on Report. We undertook then to consider what could be done to remedy it, and these amendments are the result.
Subsection (4) will rarely be at issue. Associated employers are seldom in a position to step into each other's shoes in that way. The subsection protects only secondary action that is principally aimed at the work normally done by the employer in dispute but which is taken over by an associated employer during a dispute. The effect of the amendments will be to add only slightly to the limited scope for lawful secondary action in special circumstances. We accept that the amendments are necessary, in the interests of fairness and consistency, and, on that basis, I commend them to the House.

Mr. Harold Walker: We cannot allow the amendments to pass without a brief comment. The Secretary of State says that they have been produced in response to points that we raised on Report, and I take his word for it. I am grateful to him. It may not be unique, but it is certainly exceptional to hear the Secretary of State say that he has made a concession—tiny though it may be—to the powerful and persuasive arguments of the Opposition.
However, I doubt whether any hon. Member, or even any hon. and learned Member, can pretend to have understood the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State. I certainly do not, but I am prepared to take his word that they meet the points that we raised. We shall all want to read his words carefully when they appear in Hansard.
We have said time and again that the complexity of many of the abstruse legal provisions in the Bill will pose enormous problems not only for those who have to deal with them in court and in legal proceedings generally, but for those engaged in day-to-day industrial relations. We accept that the Secretary of State has made concessions, but we shall study his words carefully in the cold light of day in Hansard.

Mr. John Evans: The siren words of the Secretary of State, suggesting that the Opposition pointed out anomalies in clause 16 and that they had been put right at our request, may have led an uninformed observer to assume that the Opposition were in favour of the clause. In fact, not only are we not in favour of it, but we regard it as one of the most dangerous parts of the Bill.
It is almost impossible to understand what the clause means. If the Secretary of State were honest, he would admit that he does not understand it. I am almost tempted to read the clause word for word to put it on the record, because I remind the House that it will not be Secretaries of State, lawyers or Members who will have to understand clause 16. Thousands of men and women on the shop floor, elected by their colleagues, will have to try to make head or tail of the clause.
The clause could lead to considerable industrial unrest and problems. It is worth pointing out that the trade union movement does not accept the term "secondary picketing" and the vast majority of individuals who work in British industry do not know what the term means. I ask hon. Members to imagine shop stewards committees sitting round, with copies of clause 16 in their hands, debating what the law will or will not allow them to do. I suggest that no hon. Member will be able to challenge me when I say that this is nonsense and that even the minor amendments which the Secretary of State has accepted will not help anyone who is at the sharp end of industry trying to work within the framework of the law.
12.15 am
I am not talking about those who are not interested in the law. I am not talking about those who are anxious to make themselves martyrs and to find themselves in gaol, as they will under this Bill, with all the industrial unrest which will flow from that. I am talking about the overwhelming majority of men and women who believe in the law of the land, who read clause 16 with these amendments and who ask "What on earth does all that gibberish mean?" They will turn to Hansard to discover what Parliament said about it, in Committee where we did not discuss it, on Report, or when considering Lords amendments—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members do not object to an

hon. Member thinking aloud about this important clause, even though the hour is late. I hope that they recognise that it is the duty of parliamentarians to try to make sense of Bills. If parliamentarians, especially those who have spent hundreds of hours on trade union legislation, say frankly that they have not the faintest idea what clause 16 means, with or without the amendments, how can ordinary people make head or tail of it?

Mr. Harold Walker: Perhaps when the Bill is enacted the Secretary of State will think of issuing with each copy a set of the charts that he used to explain the clause to the press, together with a free sample of the pointer that he used.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because the Secretary of State will recall that in Committee I asked him to produce the charts so that members of the Committee might understand what clause 16 meant. Unfortunately, he declined to do so. I agree with my right hon. Friend. It would be of great help to those men and women who have not had the benefit of superior educations and who will be trying to understand clause 16 if the Secretary of State will issue his charts.
When the Secretary of State was trying to explain why he accepted the amendments, he did not burden the House with his explanation of the meaning of clause 16 (4). It is obvious that no one in this House has the faintest idea what it means. Even at this late hour, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to explain it in detail. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those of us who are sponsored by trade unions spend a great deal of our time attending weekend schools and addressing branch meetings of trade unions and that we shall have to try to explain what the clause means. I shall have to tell my colleagues in industry that I have not the faintest idea, that Parliament has not the faintest idea, that the Secretary of State has not the faintest idea, and that certainly their Lordships in the other place have not the faintest idea.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is prepared to vote for or against a clause even though he does not understand it?

Mr. Greville Janner: The Liberals never understand anything.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The time to understand the clause occurred well before the House came to consider Lords amendments. At the moment, we are dealing with Lords amendment No. 7.

Mr. Evans: That, of course, is the answer to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) who, as a result of not attending the Committee, has not the faintest idea what any of the clauses mean. The hon. Gentleman was present at only three sittings of the Committee, and it is hardly for him to ask what I intend to do in any Division.

Mr. John Farr: Sit down.

Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) implying that the Tory Party is so arrogant now, with a majority of 70 over Labour, that a Government supporter can instruct a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party to sit down? I tell the hon. Gentleman and every other Tory Member that in no circumstances will any Tory tell me to sit down.
The Secretary of State did the House a disservice by not explaining in more detail the effects of the amendment on a clause that none of us understands.

Mr. Mikardo: I am induced to speak only by the intervention of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who seemed to think that it was equally wrong to vote for something one did not understand or to vote against it. Of course it is wrong to vote for a provision that one does not understand, because it means putting on the statute book something whose consequences one does not know, and they may be bad. But if one does not understand an amendment, it is perfectly logical to vote against it. That puts the obligation on legislators to produce legislation that human beings—not merely draftsmen—can understand. Therefore, the incomprehensibility of the clause, with the amendments, is germane.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) made some valid points on which the Secretary of State should comment. Whatever our other differences, we all want industry to work as peaceably as possibly. Anything which

may defeat that objective is to be deplored. My hon. Friend is right to say that 95 per cent. or more of industrial relations work on behalf of the workers is done not by paid union officials but by lay people—conveners and shop stewards—who have learnt all they know from cleaning up the swarf from the shop floor. They are not book learned: they are certainly not law book learned. If one imposes on them obligations that they do not understand, the psychic effect is that they are likely to become confused and frightened and therefore to get a chip on their shoulders. That is most likely when people are confused and do not know what is going on. The very incomprehensibility of the clause will worsen industrial relations in many establishments.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that this will be a problem not just for trade union officials—particularly stewards who are not fulltime—but also for the police, who have already expressed reluctance to get involved in this area? Will it not be difficult for them to interpret this clause, which will involve them?

Mr. Mikardo: I was coming to that point. I was going to express sympathy for the copper on the beat who suddenly has to look for guidance in dealing with pickets from the two pages of clause 16. I have as much sympathy for him as for the shop steward.
But my basic worry is about difficulties on the shop floor. If the Government proposed to use the other place to amend the Bill, they should have done so to make it more understandable. A number of useful amendments could have been made in the other place—I believe that some were suggested—to reduce the complexity of the clause. Why did not the Government take advantage of the House of Lords, for as long as it remains, to increase the comprehensibility of the Bill instead of leaving it incompresensible? I could then have agreed more enthusiastically with some other Lords amendments than with the trivial amendments that we are now considering.

Mr. Prior: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. This issue was raised on Report and we promised to have a further look at it.
Where a firm is in dispute with its employees and the firm seeks to transfer


work to an associated company belonging to the same group, it would be unfair if the employees of the associated company were not able to take action to prevent that additional work being done and to break the strike in that manner. We went a stage further and said that action taken against a customer who is receiving certain goods is secondary action and that that action should have immunity, provided that it is directed principally towards the original dispute and not for other motives. The anomaly which we are trying to correct involves saying that that should be so not only in respect of the customer but in respect of the supplier. The three amendments are designed to do that.
I have always conceded that the clause is difficult and complex because we seek to steer a course between the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and the 1976 Act, which gives immunity to trade unions for practically any purposes that they like to perform in any direction and however distant it is from the original dispute, so long as the trade union official feels that it has some relevance to the original dispute. That was confirmed by the judgment on MacShane v. Express Newspapers Ltd. We have sought to narrow that provision.
We also recognise that to take immunity right back so that it allows only for breaches of contract in primary disputes goes to the other extreme. When one tries to find a reasonable and sensible position, one finds oneself in difficulty. However, this is a reasonable and fair attempt at construing a difficult part of the law. The amendments meet a legitimate and long established trade union practice. That shows that the Government have thought genuinely about the matter. On that basis, I ask the House to approve the amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Secretary of State must not go on repeating the canard that it was the action of the last Government that made a breach or the inducement of breach of a contract legitimate and not actionable. For many years the assumption was that that was the clear intention of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. The last Labour Government acted in accordance with the recommendation of the Donovan Commission. The right hon. Gentleman must not continue to repeat something that he has been told

many times is a misrepresentation of the position.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 19, line 41, leave out from "section" to end of line 43 and insert
an employer who is a member of an employers' association which is a party to a trade dispute shall by virtue of his membership be regarded as a party to the dispute if he is represented in the dispute by the accociation, but not otherwise.

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment moved in the interests of even greater, not to say bionic, clarity.

Mr. Harold Walker: If it is a drafting amendment that clarifies the position, it clarifies something that we apparently overlooked previously. It may well be what my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) described in Committee as a contracting-out provision for the litigious-minded employer. It strikes me as extraordinary that we should provide in the Bill that a member of an employers' association that is in dispute—and because of his membership he is in dispute—can unilaterally make a declaration to opt out of the dispute. Apparently, he can make a declaration that he is not part of the dispute. That is rather extraordinary.
I hope that the Government do not, as appeared to be the case earlier, assume that we shall rest our understanding of the amendments on what was said in another place. I have looked at the record of what was said in another place. On 12 June the noble Lord Renton moved an amendment along the lines of the amendment before us, and said:
But there could be occasions when an employer expressly disagreed with the action of the employers' association, or one could perhaps have a very small employer in an out-of-the-way part of the country who was not aware of what was happening but would nevertheless suffer, and who apart from this provision, would be hampered by the expression used here."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 1980; Vol. 410, c. 732.]


In what respect would that employer be hampered, and in doing what? I assume only that he could be hampered in taking legal action that he might not be able to take if he was deemed to be one of the parties in dispute. I wonder what criterion will be used to determine when it is proper for the employer, in such a hypothetical position, to use that option and to say legitimately "I am not part of what is happening nationally".
Last year the Engineering Employers' Federation was engaged in a national engineering dispute. Its several thousand members were affected by the outcome of that dispute. On the assumption that these provisions had then been on the statute book, at what stage could any one of them have said "I want to opt out and then I can exercise my right to go to court which, under the present provisions, I cannot do because the trade union and work people involved will be immune". We deserve further clarification about the circumstances in which the employer would be able to exercise that option.
I think that I speak on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that we are deeply disquieted by the provision, which will enable the employer to prevent his work people and their representatives from enjoying the immunity that they have enjoyed for many years.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not agree that the amendment clarifies anything. It makes some matters obscure. It is difficult to see what is the purport, in the context of the Amendment, of the word "represented" in the last line.
Let us take the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has just quoted of the Engineering Employers' Federation. It bargains on behalf of all its member companies, and it is accepted by a company which joins the federation that either the national federation or the appropriate regional federation will do the bargaining for it with the unions in the engineering industry in certain defined fields. Each employer does his own thing with his own union representatives with regard to piecework prices and things of that sort, but there are broad considerations—working conditions, holidays and the basic wage—which are agreed by the national or regional federation with the trade unions.
I repeat that an employer joining the federation undertakes, first, to accept, that he is represented by the federation and, second, to accept whatever the federation agrees to on his behalf. In what sense, then, can any company which is a member of the federation not be represented by it so long as it remains in membership?
Let us say that there is a trade dispute in the engineering industry and the national federation is in negotiation wth the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Here we have the XYZ company which is and has for years been a member of the federation. How can it come about that the XYZ company is not represented? How does it get out of being a party to the dispute? Is there any way short of its doing what one or two companies always do in every dispute of this sort, which is to make its own deal with the trade unions and to leave the federation?
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am merely trying to be helpful. The amendment seems to provide an incentive to companies, members of employers' associations, involved in trade disputes, to make their deal and opt out. Although that is sometimes advantageous, and occasionally very advantageous, in the short term to the employees of those companies, I do not like it very much because I do not think it is beneficial to anyone in the long term.
I am a great believer in orderly bargaining. If there are people breaking ranks on either side of the negotiating table, there is disorderly bargaining and all sorts of bad blood and bad relations between the companies which have stayed in the federation and accepted the deal done for them by the federation—which they may not like very much in some cases—and those whom I suppose they would call the blacklegs.
I imagine that it is exactly the same as in a trade union, where trade unionists do not like blacklegs. I suppose that the term blackleg must be used by many companies to describe other companies which have opted out of a trade association and made their own deal with the unions in order to protect themselves against the effect of the dispute, and hence given themselves a competitive advantage over the companies which have stayed in the employers' association and


gone through with the dispute until a settlement has been reached.
I do not think that many employers' organisations that include in their functions bargaining for their member companies will like what the Government propose. This is one more example of theoretical considerations being applied in the drafting of the Bill and of provissions being inserted that are contrary to common sense.
How is the picket on the gate to know whether a lorry is bringing goods from the associate company or from somewhere else? How is the poor copper to interpret the law? This is another example of theory being applied in a ham-handed way, in a way devoid of experience of the realities of industry. I hope that the Minister will tell me how an employer who is a member of an employers' association ceases to be represented by the association short of leaving it.

Mr. John Evans: The Secretary of State gave the game away when he replied to the debate on the previous amendment. He said that whenever we attempt to define secondary picketing and to drive a line between the 1975 Act and the old Act we get into drafting difficulties. I do not wish to go over that ground again. I merely say that clause 16 is pretty incomprehensible.
It is essential that the House recognises that everything within clause 16, including the amendment, refers to secondary action. The Government and their supporters have got themselves into the usual horrifying mess. They always show their ignorance of what goes on in industry. Little secondary picketing ever goes on in the United Kingdom. The last occasion on which secondary picketing was employed on a considerable scale was in the lorry drivers' strike. It would be a pointless exercise for lorry drivers to picket their own places of work, with their lorries standing idle, if other lorries were running throughout the country carrying the goods that they should have been carrying. Those are the circumstances that bring about secondary picketing.
We are at the heart of clause 17 (7). We are talking about circumstances that will lead to strikes being organised nationally. Such strikes will involve an

employers' association. There are quite a few associations that bargain nationally on behalf of the entire industry. I have most knowledge of the Engineering Employers' Federation. We all recall the dispute that took place last year that involved the AUEW and the EEF. Virtually every firm was a party to the dispute at the outset. However, some firms started buying their way out and settling with the union.

I wonder what amendment No. 10 has to do with subsection (7), which provides that
employers shall be taken to be parties to any trade dispute in which they are represented by any employers' association.

That is one of the few concise parts of a clause which we all agree none of us can understand. Subsection (7) is clear and to the point. It is something that anyone involved in an industrial dispute as a result of central bargaining between the trade union movement and the EEF—or the chemical workers, or anyone else—would recognise. Those concerned would recognise that a group of workers from one plant would be allowed to picket at another because they were all involved in the dispute. I think that the Secretary of State will accept that that is the situation. In other words, this is an area in which picketing that is not at one's own place of employment can take place.

We have dealt with secondary picketing ad nauseam. We debated it in Committee and on Report. Under this clause, this is an area where secondary picketing would be allowed. If, for instance, men were working at one engineering establishment—one thinks of the EEF and AUEW dispute last year—they would be able to picket another establishment, because it was all one dispute.

Instead of saying that
employers shall be taken to be parties to any trade dispute in which they are represented by any employers' association",
the subsection will say that
an employer who is a member of an employers' association which is a party to a trade dispute shall by virtue of his membership be regarded as a party to the dispute if he is represented in the dispute by his association, but not otherwise.
What on earth is the difference? Is there something sinister here? Is the


Secretary of State bringing in a provision and making it difficult to read between the lines? Is it the intention that employers who are members of an employers' association will not be allowed to leave the association? The brief explanation that we had at the outset of the debate does not explain why we are substituting one form of words for another form of words which seem to say the same thing. I should be grateful if any Conservative Member—they are all obviously listening avidly to every word that I am uttering—would explain the difference.

I suspect that one reason for the change is that the Government have discovered that they have created a situation in which secondary picketing will be legal, whereas their supporters, particularly the lunatic Right-wing fringe, think that they have solved the problem of secondary picketing and no such picketing will be allowed.

Mr. Mikardo: We ought to ask the Minister to explain this. The difficulty arises from the explanation that was given by the right hon. Gentleman. He said "We are allowing secondary picketing to be lawful only in respect of action against work that is being transferred from one establishment to the establishment of an associated company ". We are back to practicalities. Let us suppose that ABC company has a subsidiary company, XYZ. There is a dispute at ABC and work is being held up. It puts some of the work on a lorry and transfers it to XYZ company. That lorry is one of a dozen that turn up at XYZ company. How do the pickets know which of the lorries they are entitled to stop? How does the policeman who is watching the pickets stop a lorry know whether that stop is legal, because it is legal only if it contains those particular goods? How will the provision work? How on earth can it conceivably work in practice?

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that important point to the attention of the House. That is a valid point. We recognise that difficult situations can arise on picket lines. The Secretary of State knows that full well because we outlined some of those situations at length in Committee when trying to get some sense into the Bill. My hon.
Friend has drawn out an even more significant point.
Pickets, who will not be sweet tempered because of the dispute, because they are out of work and losing money, will be even more deeply concerned because their families will be penalised by the provisions of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. That will lead to great bitterness. But how will pickets be able to identify work which has been transferred from the ABC company to the XYZ company in the same group? This is the dilemma. On many occasion in Committee we tried to help the Secretary of State by bringing some logic and semblance of common sense into the more tortuous parts of the Bill.
We have a right to know the purpose behind changing the words in subsection (7). Is it something sinister? Is it something of which we should be more aware? I fail to see why this new form of words should be used. I suspect that I was right in the first instance—that secondary picketing, about which the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have taken him to task, will be permitted under subsection (7). Is this a sinister way of driving—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make the mistake made by his hon. Friend earlier and tell me to sit down. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will expect me, on behalf of my constituents and my union, to pose these questions on the Floor of the House. I hope that there will not be any further attempts by Conservative Members to silence Opposition Members. We have enough difficulty because of the Government's enormous majority, but I am sure that some Conservative Members recognise that even Labour Party minorities have rights. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be the first to protect those rights.

Mr. Michael Morris: Walsall.

Mr. Evans: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, should call out the name of a town in the Midlands.

Mr. Michael Morris: I was attempting to point out that minorities do not appear to have rights in Walsall.

Mr. Evans: Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can assist me by pointing out what Walsall has to do with subsection


(7). I shall be only too happy to debate the situation in Walsall, but I cannot see what Walsall has to do with this matter
It is the duty of Parliament to pass legislation which men and women outside will understand. They will be puzzled why the words in subsection (7), which are clear, specific and understandable, should be changed to infer something sinister. At the end of the line individuals will be faced by tribunal decisions awarding costs and damages of £14,000, £15,000 or £16,000 against them. They will not be able to pay those costs and damages and will presumably find their property, furniture and so on sequestered because of the wording of the Bill. If men and women of limited means, limited education and limited knowledge are to be bound by the terms of this Bill, surely the least duty of Parliament is to make the legislation comprehensible to them in the first place.

Mr. Mayhew: Throughout the Standing Committee I always listened with pleasure and enjoyment to the contributions of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). It was only impatience to reassure him in his fears that there was something deeply sinister in the amendment that led me to try to rise prematurely to explain.
It is important that we should bear in mind the context in which we are discussing the amendment. The context is the circulars in which under the Bill secondary action shall continue to be protected by immunity—that is to say, someone taking part in secondary action shall not be liable to an injunction obtained from the civil courts to restrain him.
Taking it in shorthand, clause 16 says that secondary action will continue to be protected by immunity so long as it is action in which there is a breach of a commercial contract and the purpose is to induce the breach of a commercial contract directly preventing or disrupting the supply during the dispute of goods or services between an employer who is a party to the dispute and the employer under the contract of employment to which the secondary action relates. The key words are "the employer who is a party to the dispute."
It is obviously important that there should be as little doubt as possible as to which employers are parties to the dispute.

One of the questions with which we thought we had to deal is the question of an employer who is not directly in dispute with shop stewards in his own factory but who is a member of an employers' association which itself, as an association, is in dispute with a trade unon.
In clause 16 (7), before it was amended in another place, we said:
and for the purposes of this section employers shall be taken to be parties to any trade dispute in which they are represented by an employers' association.
What we intended there was that an employer should be regarded as a party to the dispute only if he is locked into the dispute. We intended, in the words which appear in the print, to say that he shall be regarded as being locked into the dispute if he is represented by an employers' association which is conducting the dispute on his behalf.
It was then represented to us that the words were open to a certain amount of misunderstanding. We therefore think that it is better on balance to substitute for those words I have just read out the words of the amendment, so that the clause would then read
and for the purposes of this section an employer who is a member of an employers' association which is a party to a trade dispute shall by virtue of his membership be regarded as a party to the dispute if he is represented in the dispute by the association, but not otherwise.
In other words, the purport is to make clear that he does not automatically become a party to the dispute simply by virtue of his membership.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) asked what the employer had to do to make sure that it is clear that he is not represented. This is a question of fact. The most simple way, and I should have thought the most usual way, in which this will come about is for the employer to negotiate a settlement of his own, or to say that this is what he is intending to do and that he dissociates himself from what otherwise would be being done on his behalf by the federation of which he is a member, or perhaps by saying that he is going through the processes of coming out of the federation. It is a question of fact. One cannot give a definitive list of circumstances. [Interruption.] One does not have to come out. One may ultimately be expelled, but one does not have to


come out. All that one would need to do would be to say "I am negotiating a deal", or "I have negotiated a deal."
I am
After all, it is in the interests of those who wish to picket on behalf of a trade union that they should know whether an employer has negotiated a deal and is no longer represented by the employers' association. They do not want to waste their energies on picketing somebody who is no longer part of the dispute, and who cannot yield anything by being successfully picketed.
Therefore, I assure the hon. Member for Newton that there is nothing sinister here. It is entirely in order to make as clear as possible what is intended by the expression in clause 16 (3),
an employer who is a party to the dispute",
that we think it desirable to amend the original words in clause 16 (7).

Mr. Michael English: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would not be a defence to a charge of treason to say that one was negotiating one's naturalisation into another country? If one was a citizen of Britain, one would still be liable in treason.

Mr. Mayhew: That is an interesting reflection, one which reminds me that I did not point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with policemen; they have nothing to do with questions of whether there is immunity.
For those reasons, I hope that I have dispelled—

Mr. Harold Walker: Reverting to the example of the national engineering dispute of last year, I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that in the engineering industry there is a large number of groups of workers whose pay is affected by national negotiations in which they and their representatives are often not directly involved. Equally, there are many members of the Engineering Employers' Federation who employ such groups of workers and yet who are not themselves directly involved in those negotiations.
In our debates tonight we have referred several times to the Federation of Engineering Design Companies, people who employ design engineers, draughtsmen

and so on, employees whose pay is influenced by the mainstream pay settlement in the engineering industry but who do not often get themselves or their representatives involved in the negotiations. They are often conducted by the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions, or sometimes by the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers engineering section. Their pay increase follows as a consequential increase.
In those circumstances, one of those federated employers could well say "My chaps are not directly involved in this dispute, and I am not directly involved, even though we are secondarily involved indirectly. We shall pay whatever ultimate settlement reflects itself in the pay of our chaps, but until then my chaps will not get themselves embroiled in this dispute, and for the purposes of this legislation I am saying, under this provision, 'I am not a party to the dispute, even though I am a member of the EEF, even though eventually my chaps by some secondary or tertiary negotiations will be beneficiaries.'" In that situation he is saying "Therefore, if my chaps get themselves involved in any action that will be construed as industrial action bringing pressure on me, or whatever, they are exposed to action in the courts; I can take action against them, because they cannot claim the immunity that the previous legislation might otherwise confer."

Mr. Mayhew: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that it has anything to do with the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that there may be an employer whose custom it is always to reflect in his wage levels the result of negotiations that have been conducted by an employers' association. It is always a question of fact in each case for a tribunal as to whether an employer is a party to a dispute. All the circumstances will be looked at.
What is said in the clause is simply that an employer shall not be regarded as being a party to a dispute merely by being a member of an association—in other words, automatically, by reason of the fact that he is a member of an employers' association—unless that association represents him in the dispute. There is an infinite variety of circumstances that may apply across the breadth of British industry, and an industrial tribunal, with its practical experience and its tripartite


basis, will look at all the circumstances and come to a realistic assessment. At least, that is what it should do. However, that does not have any bearing on this amendment.

Mr. Greville Janner: Even if the hon. and learned Gentleman was right when he said that a tribunal would consider questions of fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) was also right to say that the reality is that the police have to go to disputes to sort out who is allowed to picket, who is a primary picket and which lorries can be stopped. That takes place long before the dispute reaches a tribunal. That is where the trouble lies. The police are very much involved, and they cannot understand this measure any more than most hon. Members.

Mr. Mayhew: The amendment sets out who shall and who shall not be regarded as a party to the dispute as an employer. Indeed, it does not go as far as that. It says that employers who are members of employers' associations shall be regarded as parties to a dispute.
Unless there were a subsection that explained that not everybody who was a member of an employers' association would thereby be regarded as a party to the dispute, there would be confusion. Some people may, for example, remain members of the Engineering Employers' Federation despite the fact that they have indicated that they do not agree with the federation's view about prosecuting the dispute. They may be negotiating their own way out. Such a subsection would seem to be sensible and desirable.
The provision has nothing to do with the police. We are discussing immunity from civil actions. In those circumstances, unions should be aware that if they continue to take secondary action against an employer who is not a party to the dispute they will not be protected by the immunity that the clause gives.

Mr. John Evans: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman was very assiduous in Committee. I shall give way, for the last time, to him.

Mr. Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that if an employer opted out by settling with the trade unions but was subjected to picketing,

those pickets would fall within the provisions of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that if a firm settled with the trade unions on their terms, and outside the federation, it would be the height of lunacy to suggest that further picketing would take place on that employer's premises. That is the last thing that would happen. The workers would proclaim to other employers that Joe Bloggs had settled on the terms and conditions asked for.

Mr. Mayhew: At last the longed-for accord between the hon. Gentleman and myself has been reached. As I pointed out in response to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, people should recognise that it is in the interests of those who wish to picket to clarify the parties to a dispute. People do not wish to picket somebody who has already settled, and who can yield nothing.
There is nothing sinister about the measure. It is all for the best in what I cannot claim is the best of all possible worlds, although it is at least a realistic one. In those circumstances, I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Le Marchant and Mr. Berry were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 20

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 21, line 9, leave out from beginning to "such" and insert—

"(2) Sections A, 3 to 18 and 19 (2) and (3) of this Act, and Schedules 1 and 2, shall not come into operation until"

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment enables the provisions of the Bill which are listed to be brought into effect by a commencement order.
Clauses 1 and 2, which enable the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to provide funds for secret union ballots and to produce codes of practice, will come into effect immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. The main reason for the amendment is to enable the codes of practice provision, which is purely enabling, to come into force immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent, so that consultation on the draft codes can proceed at the earliest possible moment.
Clause 1 is similarly enabling, in that it enables the Secretary of State to make, by regulations, a scheme providing for payment out of public funds for union ballots. It seems reasonable to bring these enabling powers into operation at the time of Royal Assent. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I should like the Minister to clarify one matter. The Secretary of State was kind enough to see myself and others about schedule 11 to the 1975 Act, which is listed in schedule 2. As I understand it, schedule 2 is to come into effect on a date to be determined by the Secretary of State. Am I to understand that he has conceded that schedule 11 shall be deleted from schedule 2 and that he will not interfere with the happy relationships in the furniture industry?

Mr. Harold Walker: Before the Minister replies to my hon. Friend, will he clear up another point? There is a tremendous amount of interest in the time at which the Bill will become operative and when the different provisions will become effective. However, there is a great deal of misunderstanding. In the Daily Mail this morning—and I could hardly blame the Minister if he said that I should not take notice of what I read in the newspapers, particularly the Daily Mail—Mr. Gordon Greig, the political editor, reported that the Bill would become law two days from Wednesday—on 1 August. I should be rather surprised to hear that there were any real grounds for believing that. None the less, many people take notice of what they read in the newspapers, so that misunderstanding should be cleared up.
There is a widespread assumption that once the Bill obtains the Royal Assent

every part of it will become operative immediately. We in the House know that that is not the case, but not everyone outside knows that. Many of those involved in the day-to-day management of industrial relations are not aware of it either. They do not know that the Bill will become effective—apart from those enabling provisions that have just been referred to—on a day appointed by the Secretary of State. We should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would make that clear and also indicate when he expects the different parts to become operative. There is great interest in the Bill, and this is an important point.

Mr. Mikardo: Two parts of the Bill come into operation immediately it receives the Royal Assent. I am not concerned about the ballot provisions. That measure is the deadest dead duck that there ever was. It is one part of the Bill that will never be taken up. However, I am greatly concerned about the codes of practice. I do not ask for a commitment, but may we have a guesstimate of how long consultations will take? I am sure that the Department of Employment is working on the Bill, and I dare say that a rough target date has been suggested for various aspects. I realise that there are often unexpected difficulties, and we shall not hold the Secretary of State to every dot and comma, but we should like a rough estimate.

Mr. John Evans: I, too, am concerned about the codes of practice. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that the ballot will not happily be adopted by the trade union movement.
The codes of practice could be used in evidence before a tribunal. Who will be consulted by the Secretary of State in drawing up the codes? The TUC has made it plain to the Secretary of State that it is not prepared to discuss the codes of practice with the Government. Whom do the Government therefore intend to consult? A code of practice for industrial relations that has not been discussed with the TUC is not worth the paper on which it is written. The Secretary of State is laying emphasis on the virtue of a code of practice. I therefore feel that he should bend over backwards to get agreement with the TUC.
In which areas do the Government seek to introduce codes of practice? We know about picketing. I hope that the report is wrong, but I have read that the Secretary of State is considering limiting pickets to six people. In Committee much was said that should persuade the right hon. Gentleman quickly to drop that hot brick.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that no code of practice will be issued while the House is in recess? I trust that we shall have the opportunity of at least a brief debate on the codes of practice. I should have thought that it would be a good idea for the Secretary of State to consult Parliament on the codes of practice. He knows that his hon. Friends have no knowledge of industrial relations, but he appreciates that there is a welter of such knowledge on the Opposition side, and we should be only too happy to help him draw up codes of practice on a variety of trade union activities. I hope that the Secretary of State will tread warily and will attempt to get the agreement of the trade union movement on the codes of practice. The cost of achieving that agreement may be the dropping of large parts of the Bill, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that would be an even better exercise.

Mr. Mayhew: I can tell the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) that there is no change in the intention of the Government to repeal schedule 11.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr Walker) asked when the Bill will come into force. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that cannot be controlled by the Government. Once the Bill leaves the House it is the responsibility of Mr. Speaker, and the precise date of the coming into force lies within the control of Her Majesty, but we expect that it will be at an early date.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) asked about codes of practice. We intend to consult widely on them, and the period for consultation will last from the date when the codes are published—immediately or shortly after the coming into force of the Act—and 10 October.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) asked whom we would consult. I said at Question Time last week that we intend to consult all the bodies that

we consulted on the working papers that formed the foundation of the Bill. That includes the TUC and the CBI and other representative bodies, including all those that represent the police. Although the TUC has said that it feels unable to assist us in the formation of a code of practice, we hope that it will be able to give us its advice on the codes on closed shops and picketing that my right hon. Friend will publish.
The hon. Gentleman asked what other codes are envisaged. The answer is that at present no code is envisaged on any other subject.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon and learned Gentleman has either misunderstood or failed to answer the basic question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). We know that the Bill must await Royal Assent before it comes into force, but as the Secretary of State is to decide the date of the coming into force of various clauses when does he think that he might make an order to activate those provisions?

Mr. Mayhew: As soon as practicable.

Mr. Harold Walker: This will be the last opportunity that we shall have to press the Government on this important matter. Many thousands engaged in the day-to-day management—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot make another speech. The Minister has sat down.

Mr. Harold Walker: With the leave of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As it is late at night, I shall allow the right hon. Gentleman to make an intervention.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important matter. Many engaged in industry and commerce, and in the trade union movement, will need to make arrangements in anticipation of the coming into operation of different parts of the Bill. There is a widespread erroneous assumption that the whole Bill will become operative on the day that it receives Royal Assent. People need to be disabused of that notion and given some rough guidance—no more than that—of when the various parts of the legislation will, if all goes right, be made effective.

Mr. Prior: Some parts of the Bill will come into operation by commencement order within about two weeks, and others about a month later than that. As my hon. and learned Friend said, we shall consult widely on the codes of practice. We should like to publish them as soon as the Bill becomes law. We cannot publish them sooner than that. As soon as the Bill becomes law, we shall publish the codes of practice. They will be available for consultation until 10 October, and the House will be asked to come to a decision on them, after debate, on our return.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not important for industry to know, for example, when the new maternity rules are to come into force? Entirely new procedures will have to be put into operation. Surely it is the Minister's wish that those who have to deal with these rules know which of the rules will come into force in two weeks, which in a month, and which as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter. It must be reasonable to tell people when and how to change their arrangements.

Mr. Prior: I am not certain of the date, but I recognise the force of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, and I shall answer a question on the matter in the House so that people in industry will know exactly when the maternity provisions will come into operation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Walter Harrison: No.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13 agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a consolidation measure which incorporates certain amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. It consolidates certain enactments relating to education in Scotland and, apart from the amendments that are intended to remove certain minor anomalies in existing law, the Bill makes no changes to it.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The Question is, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Walter Harrison: No.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

The Chairman: To save the time of the House, I propose to put the Question on the clauses and the schedules en bloc.
The Quesion is, That clauses 1 to 137 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Walter Harrison: No.

The Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman persists in shouting "No", I shall have to put the Questions separately.

Mr. Harrison: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Question was put on the earlier business. I shouted "No." My shouts were ignored. As a Member of this House, I feel that I have to make my representations, having shouted "No" before. This is the only method that I have to make those representations, and, because I was ignored earlier when I shouted "No", I am entitled to shout "No" to this proposal in order to register my protest.

The Chairman: It seems that I shall have to put the Question on each clause separately.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates in their entirety the Water (Scotland) Acts of 1946 and 1949, the Water Act 1958 so far as it applies to Scotland and the bulk of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967, together with provisions relating to water in certain other enactments.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is purely a consolidation measure, consolidating certain enactments relating to solicitors and notaries public in Scotland, and is intended to make no change in the existing law. I commend the Bill to the House as a useful measure which re-enacts in a readily accessible and clearly set out form a number of existing Acts. I am confident that it will be of great use to all those involved in Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates the law on criminal appeals in Northern Ireland, starting with the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1968. The need for consolidation arises primarily from the fundamental change made in the court structure under the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. That Act abolished the separate Court of Criminal Appeal which then existed and transferred the jurisdiction of that court to the Court of Appeal. It set up a new system of Crown courts in Northern Ireland to try cases on indictment, and replaced the old system of assizes. As a result of the changes, the 1968 Act has been subject to much amendment, and the Bill provides much needed consolidation.
The Bill has been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. In its fourteenth report the Committee said that it was satisfied that the Bill


represented the existing law and that there was no point to which Parliament's attention should be drawn.
The Bill is pure consolidation. It effects no change in the existing law. It is a much-needed measure, and I comment it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

HIGHWAYS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates the law concerning highways, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission contained in its report No. 100. As the House will have seen, the Bill is a monster. It has 348 clauses and 25 schedules. It is a major consolidation measure, and I pay tribute to the Law Commission and its draftsmen, Mr. Rippengal and Miss Christie. The praises of a consolidation draftsman often go unsung, but the benefit to the users of the statute book of the continuing process of consolidation is immeasurable, and we are much indebted to them.
A Bill of this length and complexity might be expected to occupy the House for a considerable period. However, at this late hour the House will be relieved to hear that, as a consolidation measure, the Bill has been considered in detail by the Joint Committee. The Committee made certain amendments to improve its form and to bring it into conformity with the existing law.
The Committee was of the opinion that apart from those parts of the Bill that are

the subject of the Law Commission's recommendations, the Bill as amended is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. It was satisfied that the recommendations are for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law and that the amendments which the Bill proposes to make to the existing law give effect to those recommendations. The House is much indebted to the members of that Committee for the immense amount of work that lies behind those few words.
As I have said, this is a highly desirable measure of consolidation and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Albert Booth: There is no provision on the Order Paper to indicate that any remaining stages are to be taken. If the Bill is committed at this stage, may we have some indication of when the remaining stages are to be considered?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): We shall come to that in a minute.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

STATE SCHOOLS (VOLUNTARY AID SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Gerry Neale: First, I apologise to the Minister for keeping him until this late hour. I appreciate the great work that he does on behalf of education in this country and also the sympathetic ear that he always gives to hon. Members on matters of this kind.
I wish to deal with the problem of voluntary aid and services in State schools which I first raised, as the Minister will recall, in my speech on a Ten-Minute


Bill on 25 March of this year. On that occasion the Bill received a majority vote that it should be printed and read a Second Time. It sought to establish the lack of clarity in the Education Act 1944 over the statutory ability of local education authorities to accept voluntary aid and services in State schools, and the need for the law to be put right by establishing clearly that those local education authorities would then have the right to accept any form of voluntary aid.
Arising out of that Bill, I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and asked him two things in the alternative. I asked him if the conclusion that I had reached was, in his view, right, to confirm by circular to all the local education authorities that they may accept all forms of voluntary aid from then on. I asked him, on the other hand, if I was incorrect, in his view, to confirm that arrangements would be made for the law to be amended to permit such voluntary schemes to fall expressly within the powers of education authorities.
I accept that Ministers are not permitted to express an interpretative opinion of the law. However, the reply that I received from the Minister of State in another place was interesting, if not to say naive. It was dated 10 May. The fact that it repeated the doubt discovered in my researches, which I outlined in the House in March, did not take the issue any further forward. A definition referred to in that letter is worth a comment. It relates to the free provision of education, and states:
It is generally widely considered in the education service that the provisions relate to activities and facilities forming part of the ordinary school curriculum, with the implication that things outside that curriculum may be open to charging or voluntary contributions.
Prior to my Ten-Minute Bill, parents in Oxford were paying for an extra teacher, and parents in Cambridgeshire were paying for extra classrooms—hardly matters outside the ordinary school curriculum. That definition makes the schemes illegal, in my view. The local education authorities would be acting ultra vires in accepting them.
I hasten to add that I do not for one moment wish to contest the merits of the schemes. On the contrary, I wish to

champion them, and I hope to see them extended. I am concerned about their lack of apparent legality and their vulnerability to legal attack by those determined to restrict educational provision to local education authorities, or by those concerned to ensure that the bureaucratic integrity of local education authorities is maintained.
I wish to make it plain on behalf of the voluntary schemes—estimated recently to exceed £20 million—that the present law is bad, and the danger to voluntary aid schemes increases the longer that the doubt is left. I assume that the Minister and the Secretary of State agree with the merits of the schemes.
Since March I have had reason to reinforce my argument in the House in the hope that the Minister would promise a speedy amendment of the law. I wish to expand two points briefly. First, the evolutionary process of voluntary aid is increasing in momentum, making clarity of the law even more urgent. Secondly, there should be more of what I would call privatisation of threatened State schools. Dealing with the evolutionary process, I recalled in my Ten-Minute Bill the way in which and the reasons for, the development of voluntary aid had progressed since 1944.
It is now clear that since March 1980 the process has been even more dramatic. First, the Secretary of State has gone on record as promoting parental voluntary aid, especially for the funding of school books. I am most grateful to him for his support to parents, despite the fact that it further begs the question of legality. Secondly, all over Britain more and more schemes are being started which, with impunity, I can claim so invade the Minister's definition of the free provision of education as to leave it in tatters.
Perhaps the most comprehensive evidence of all was the survey conducted by The Times Educational Supplement of schools in Suffolk. The report of that survey makes it plain that a quarter of all primary schools are buying textbooks out of parental funds. There are examples of them buying exercise books, pencils and stationery. There are examples of them providing for two extra classrooms, two internal partitions, damp-proofing for roofs and various other matters. One


headmaster said that it was imperative to have a large school fund to meet essential curriculum needs—that is, a fund raised out of private donations.
As public expenditure savings are effected, and as parental enthusiasm for local schools increases, so the degree and intensity of voluntary participation will multiply upon itself. The Minister must be prepared for that evolutionary process to carry with it the increasing risk of court action which, if successful, could bring to a halt schemes on which thriving schools are now dependent. It would be irresponsible to allow these doubts to continue for longer than is absolutely necessary.
Coincidentally, in this Session we have processed through Parliament highly commendable proposals on so-called privatisation affecting the. National Freight Corporation and British Aerospace. We have carried through proposals to enable private and voluntary funding of the National Health Service. We would be inconsistent if we did not place education firmly in the same category. We should promote the idea of a degree of privatisation in our State schools, especially those threatened by closure for whatever reasons.
Parents have long since demonstrated their willingness to raise funds and to provide voluntary aid and services to advance the education of their children. Parents at St. Wenn, a village in my constituency, attempted to achieve a partnership in privatisation with the Cornwall county council. They failed because the council claimed that the 1944 Act prevented such an exercise. That constituted the most tragic rejection of community involvement. It flew in the face of the highly commendable efforts of the rural advisory committee of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, a body which has done a great deal to promote the future and well-being of village schools.
Village schools form an integral part of rural communities. It is not enough merely to pay lip-service to them. If we cannot afford village schools, we should not indulge in a cover-up and say that for educational reasons the schools should close and the pupils transferred to schools some distance away. We should first be honest and admit to the

parents that we cannot afford to continue them, and invite voluntary aid by parents.
We should be prepared partially to privatise such schools. Failure to do so can lead to the most remarkable results. In Henstead in Suffolk parents have taken a lease on an old State village school. They run a private village school that is part fee paying and part community funded in the same premises and within the laid down requirements that cover, for example, inspectors. That is a terrible indictment of that local education authority and the system that we operate. It is a tremendous commendation of the potential of parental aid.
I ask my hon. Friend to recognise the tremendous voluntary efforts of parents to aid and advance education in State schools. Let us applaud those efforts. Let us admit as a matter of principle that there should be no limit to the scope of voluntary aid or services provided by parents as a result of arrangements made freely with local education authorities. Let us admit that there is a lack of clarity on this subject in the Act that warrants a change in the law as soon as possible.
Finally, I ask my hon. Friend to accept that we must prepare for, and not prevent, closer participation and the joint voluntary sponsorship by parents and local education authorities of schools that otherwise would be doomed to failure.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) for giving the House an opportunity to discuss voluntary aid for schools. It is an important subject, and there has been a good deal of misunderstanding and misrepresentation lately of the Government's view.
I know how much my hon. Friend has done to encourage voluntary effort within schools. That is something that the Government commend. I was privileged to visit my hon. Friend's constituency before he became its distinguished Member. We rejoiced at the great victory on 3 May 1979, and congratulate him on the way in which he has looked after his constituency ever since. That applies not only to education matters but in all other


respects. I know that he has been involved not only in his own constituency, but in Milton Keynes, where he was a distinguished mayor in an earlier incarnation.
Like my hon. Friend, I heartily applaud the efforts of parents and others to raise extra funds for their local schools. Nothing but good can come of the greater involvement that that gives parents in the life of a school. The issues with which we are concerned are basically matters of common sense. They should be looked at realistically, rather than become the subject of political point-scoring or legal quibbling. We are all concerned to maintain, and indeed improve, the standard of education, and this requires the best efforts of authorities, schools and parents.
My hon. Friend spoke about the degree of parental involvement. This is something about which we as a party are concerned. In the Education (No. 2) Bill which went through the House this Session we enfranchised two parents at least on the governing body of each school, and we enfranchised choice of school. We believe, not in a production-controlled society, but in a consumer-controlled society, and, after all, parents act for their children as representatives of the consumer in education.
My hon. Friend raised the question of what the law says. Let us be clear about this. Section 139 of the Local Government Act 1972 empowers local education authorities to accept gifts of money or property for the purpose of discharging any of their functions. However, in accepting gifts or voluntary contributions authorities have to be conscious of their duties under the 1944 Act—to which my hon. Friend referred—which lays on them the responsibility for securing the provision of sufficient education and defraying the necessary expenses, which includes the cost of maintaining their schools.
The concept of a free education system—which is basic to the 1944 Act—is something to which the Government remain committed. We all pay for education indirectly through our rates and taxes, and there is no question in the Government's mind of demanding direct payment from parents for their children's schooling or for essential materials. What we are talking about are voluntary contributions. It is up to the school and the

authority concerned to make sure that in making use of them they are within the law; that is, that such contributions are acceptable under the provisions whereby the authority can accept gifts. That is a question that arises under section 139 of the Local Government Act. At the same time, that must be consistent with its duty as a local education authority to maintain the schools.
It is not up to me this evening to comment on individual cases. Reference was made to one, and I might return to that, because my hon. Friend made it quite famous. These cases have to be looked at carefully, and ultimately they are matters for the courts. However, where difficulties occur it would seem to us to be a rather heavy-handed approach to turn straight to the law. I do not think that it would be right or necessary for the House to legislate on the line between the responsibility of a local education authority on the one side, and on the other side the rights of parents to add voluntary extras. Education should be a co-operative venture, in which we welcome the involvement of parents not just because of what they add to it but because of their continuing interest in the education of their children. It is common sense that needs to be applied, not statute law.
Let me give an illustration of a local authority that asks for voluntary—and I stress voluntary—help with books. With all the talk that there is these days, one would think it astonishing that what I said at the last education Question Time happens. I remember what happened years ago when I was a headmaster and we wanted to do a certain science course. The capitation allowance had gone. We raised some money from parents. Nobody considered it remarkable then, and looking back I do not consider it remarkable now. It seemed sensible to say to parents "We want to introduce this course"—not the parents of the children who took the course, but the parents' association—and they raised the money for some very expensive textbooks that were required for the sixth form.
Coming back to the illustration, if those books, purchased with parental help, supplement the basic provision, that seems to me a legitimate use of extra money. One could argue in the case to which I referred that a number of A-level subjects were already being done, but the


books were required for additional A-level subjects which were supplemental to basic needs. If the parents are asked to pay for basic provision, without which the syllabus could not be pursued or the normal course of education continued, that would seem to be wrong.
It is unreal to think that Ministers or the House should pronounce on where the line should be drawn. In many cases the law follows experience. One of the traditions of this country is the building up of case law. That means that one moves to a situation and the law eventually catches up, instead of running before one. As my hon. Friend said, there has been a considerable movement of voluntary help in schools in recent years. But where the line is to be drawn is a local matter which the local education authority and the school should examine and, where necessary, explain to parents.
One may take the case of an authority that is considering a charge perhaps for extra music tuition or swimming lessons. It is important that such an authority should have a clear policy whether the provision is basic education which its pupils are expected to have, or voluntary extras which are optional. The legal position between these two cases may be quite different, but it is a matter for the authority, not for the Government, to decide.
The same is true of the suggestion sometimes made—my hon. Friend referred to this happening in one school—that parent-teacher associations or others might take over the costs of employing an additional teacher, whether it be in a small rural school with restricted staffing or to supplement a large school's curriculum. I think that authorities must be particularly mindful of their statutory duty. Every case would have to be looked at on its merits, but there is a clear possibility that action of this sort could leave the authority open to the challenge that it was no longer meeting its obligations under the Education Acts. That point was referred to by my hon. Friend.
However, to take the difficulties further, regardless of these statutory considerations, the employment of a teacher by any body other than an education authority raises practical difficulties. There are contractual problems. By

whom would the teacher be employed? For instance, what would be the position with regard to redundancy payments or compensation for unfair dismissal? Against whom would the teacher exercise his statutory right to remuneration? If a group of parents took responsibility for a teacher's salary they might not wish to make any commitment beyond the time of their children's attendance at that school. That is obviously one problem.
Such a group of people certainly could not bind their successors, and it seems unlikely that individuals would be prepared to give such guarantees. Other considerations with regard to superannuation and cover in the event of sickness only serve to emphasise the problems involved in such a scheme. I know that such a scheme was offered, but not accepted, although it was in another case not in the same local education authority. An arrangement of this kind would seem therefore to expose both the authority and the teacher to an unacceptable degree of risk and uncertainty.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend saying that a parent-teacher association is able to raise money for a swimming pool or something like that but is not able to fund a teacher even if it accepts all the conditions that he has just put forward?

Dr. Boyson: I welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle). I was saying that these were the difficulties involved. Somebody would have to be statutorily responsible for the employment of the teacher, and matters concerning pension rights, superannuation and redundancies are involved. I just mention that there are difficulties. I do not want to spend too long on this matter.

Mr. Neale: The point that arises in these situations is that, despite the contractual difficulties that exist, and are accepted to exist, when parents are faced with the prospect of having one teacher fewer they seek to establish a contractual position, however difficult it may be. There is one example that has proved to be satisfactory to parents and to the teacher concerned in a case that one could name. A number of parents' organisations around the country are waiting for guidance on this matter.

Dr. Boyson: This is a delicate issue, as my hon. Friend knows, with the supreme gentleness with which he pushed his little boat out further on this matter. The one authority that has done it has decided to do it no more. I do not want to go into details. I may not even know why it has not decided to do it any more. There is a certain degree of grey land here, a difference between the darkness and the sunlight, as to where it stands along those lines.
Perhaps I may move on, with the agreement of my hon. Friends—on which I am sure I can presume at this time of the morning. On the other side of the coin, however, I see no reason for restricting the use of voluntary funds in the way some have recently suggested. As my right hon. and learned Friend has said on several occasions recently, if parents are anxious and willing to assist their child's school by raising money, why restrict the headmaster as to how best to use that extra money? If the extra income can be used to buy additional musical instruments for the school orchestra, extra school apparatus or football kit, is there any reason in principle why it should not be spent on additional books for the library, extra books for the classroom, or more materials for the art room?
My hon Friend asked us to give encouragement along those lines. I am delighted tonight to give encouragement to parental involvement. I want shortly to mention some figures on this subject.
My hon. Friend has raised the question of keeping a village school open by means of voluntary aid funds. I should not wish to comment on this case in his constituency, which is for the local education authority to decide. I would say, however, that I appreciate the community interest in the local school. I think that there are great community advantages in village schools. There comes a point about their financial cost if it is being borne by a subsidisation from a larger area, and from bigger schools to smaller schools, but I realise, having attended a village hill school myself, a small Church of England hill school in one of the villages of Lancashire, how vital they are. A balance has to be struck.
My hon. Friend is right in welcoming and encouraging the voluntary contribution of extra funds to our schools, and extra parental help.
With superb timing—not the timing necessary for this debate this morning—on Friday a book came out entitled "Parental Involvement in Primary Schools". I thought "My hon. Friend is a wise man to have enough prescience to know that that book was coming out at that time". It is very interesting. This inquiry was done between 1976 and 1978, at a time when one could say that the dark cloud of Socialism, which apparently was supposed to provide everything for the schools and a glorious age, was in control of this country, yet at that time 96 per cent. of the schools in Britain took part in some form of fund raising.
At 80 per cent. of the primary schools over half the parents gave some money in fund raising as a vote of confidence in the schools their children were attending. About 78 per cent. helped with school visits. About 65 per cent. helped with sewing curtains for Christmas plays. That is an important activity. Also, 65 per cent. of parents were involved in minor repairs of equipment. The most fascinating fact to me was that major repairs and alterations in school buildings—defined as, say, turning a cloakroom into a classroom, or a classroom into a cloakroom, not necessarily on the same day but by a change at some period—were undertaken by parents of children at 10 per cent. of all schools.
At Highbury Grove a cloakroom was built in a corridor by parents in the building industry. Presumably the school became part of the 10 per cent. where major alterations were made with the encouragement of parents.
The Government believe, and I hope that the Opposition agree, that voluntary help is part of a free democratic society. We do not want to live in a society in which the State provides everything, and we just stand touching our forelock, holding out our begging bowl to whoever is in charge of us at the time. However, there must be a balance between the obligation under the 1944 Act to provide basic education free of charge and the


right of parents, under the 1972 Act, to add to provision inside the schools.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the matter, because in a free society parents should be encouraged to participate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House sometimes talk loosely about participation. What better participation is there than helping schools that one's children attend? That is a genuine form of participation.
It is the local education authorities' responsibility to meet the schools' basic educational needs, but the Government will encourage voluntary contributions—of help and funds—from parents, who thus show their confidence in the teachers and in the schools that their children attend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Two o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT (UPRATING)

Division No. 430]
AYES
[10 pm


Adams, Allen
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Allaun, Frank
Ford, Ben
Mikardo, Ian


Alton, David
Forrester, John
Millan, Rt. Hon Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
George, Bruce
Morton, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stanley


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Golding, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gourlay, Harry
O'Halloran, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Ted
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, John (Islington C)
Palmer, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, George


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parker, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Penhaligon, David


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Haynes, Frank
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Heffer, Eric S.
Race, Reg


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Radice, Giles


Campbell, Ian
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Jo


Cant, R. B.
Homewood, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horam, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howells, Geraint
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Les
Rooker, J. W.


Coleman, Donald
Hudson Davies, Ednyfed (Caerphilly)
Roper, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Rowlands, Ted


Cook, Robin F.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ryman, John


Cowans, Harry
Janner, Hon Greville
Sandelson, Neville


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
John, Brynmor
Sever, John


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sheerman, Barry


Crowther, J. S.
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Mrs Renée


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kinnock, Neil
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Lamborn, Harry
Soley, Clive


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leighton, Ronald
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stoddart, David


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Stott, Roger


Dixon, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Straw, Jack


Dobson, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dormand, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Douglas, Dick
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dubs, Alfred
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William
Tilley, John


Eadie, Alex
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tinn, James


Eastham, Ken
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McNally, Thomas
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McNamara, Kevin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McWilliam, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


English, Michael
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Weetch, Ken


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wellbeloved, James


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Welsh, Michael


Field, Frank
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Fitch, Alan
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Flannery, Martin
Maxton, John
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)




NOES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Fairbairn, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan


Arnold, Tom
Faith, Mrs Shella
Lawson, Nigel


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Farr, John
Lee, John


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fell, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Banks, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John


Bendall, Vivian
Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacGregor, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Blackburn, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Body, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McQuarrie, Albert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Madel, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, John


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marland, Paul


Bowden, Andrew
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian
Mather, Carol


Brittan, Leon
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Brooke, Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Brotherton, Michael
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mayhew, Patrick


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mellor, David


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Buck, Antony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bulmer, Esmond
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Butcher, John
Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Butler, Hon Adam
Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moore, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hawksley. Warren
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Channon, Paul
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John
Mudd, David


Churchill, W. S.
Henderson, Barry
Murphy, Christopher


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Myles, David


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neale, Gerrard


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James
Needham, Richard


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Nelson, Anthony


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Neubert, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hooson, Tom
Newton, Tony


Cope, John
Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Cormack, Patrick
Howe. Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nott, Rt Hon John


Corrie, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Osborn, John


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Parris, Matthew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Dover, Denshore
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Patten, John (Oxford)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pattie, Geoffrey


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pawsey, James


Durant, Tony
Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Sir Ian


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom
Pink, R. Bonner


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pollock, Alexander


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Porter, George


Eggar, Timothy
Knox, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Elliott, Sir William
Lamont, Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Emery, Peter
Lang, Ian
Prior, Rt Hon James

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Woolmer, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Terry Davis and


Winnick, David
Wright, Shella
Mr. Hugh McCartney.


Woodall, Alec
Young, David (Bolton East)

Proctor, K. Harvey
Spence, John
Waddington, David


Raison, Timothy
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wakeham, John


Rathbone, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Sproat, Iain
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Renton, Tim
Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rhodes James, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stanley, John
Waller, Gary


Ridsdale, Julian
Steen, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stevens, Martin
Ward, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Watson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stokes, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rost, Peter
Strading Thomas, J.
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter
Wheeler, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Whitney, Raymond


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Wickenden, Keith


Scott, Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thompson, Donald
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Silvester, Fred
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sims, Roger
Trippier, David



Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Speller, Tony

EMPLOYMENT BILL

Division No. 431]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Alton, David
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Ancram, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Arnold, Tom
Clegg, Sir Walter
Goodhart, Phillip


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Cockeram, Eric
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Colvin, Michael
Gorst, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cope, John
Gow, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cormack, Patrick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Banks, Robert
Corrie, John
Gray, Hamish


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Greenway, Harry


Bendall, Vivian
Cranborne, Viscount
Grieve, Percy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Critchley, Julian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Grist, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dickens, Geoffrey
Grylls, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Stephen
Gummer, John Selwyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp; Ew'll)


Blackburn, John
Dover, Denshore
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hannam, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Dykes, Hugh
Hastings, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hawkins, Paul


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eggar, Timothy
Hawksley, Warren


Bright, Graham
Elliott, Sir William
Hayhoe, Barney


Brinton, Tim
Emery, Peter
Heddle, John


Brittan, Leon
Eyre, Reginald
Henderson, Barry


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fairgrieve, Russell
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brotherton, Michael
Faith, Mrs Shelia
Hill, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Farr, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Phillip (Carlton)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hooson, Tom


Bryan, Sir Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Antony
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howells, Geraint


Butcher, John
Forman, Nigel
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Butler, Hon Adam
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fox, Marcus
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Freud, Clement
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fry, Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Paul
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kaberry, Sir Donald

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Myles, David
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Kershaw, Anthony
Neale, Gerrard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Needham, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Kits on, Sir Timothy
Nelson, Anthony
Squire, Robin


Knight, Mrs Jill
Neubert, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Knox, David
Newton, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lamont, Norman
Normanton, Tom
Stanley, John


Lang, Ian
Nott, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley
Stevens, Martin


Latham, Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lawrence, Ivan
Osborn, John
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Lawson, Nigel
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stokes, John


Lee, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Strading Thomas, J.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Tapsell, Peter


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parris, Matthew
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tebbit, Norman


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Loveridge, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Luce, Richard
Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald


Lyell, Nicholas
Penhaligon, David
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


McCrindle, Robert
Percival, Sir Ian
Thornton, Malcolm


Macfarlane, Neil
Pollock, Alexander
Townend, John (Bridlington)


MacGregor, John
Porter, George
Trippier, David


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


McQuarrie, Albert
Prior, Rt Hon James
Viggers, Peter


Madel, David
Proctor, K. Harvey
Waddington, David


Major, John
Raison, Timothy
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Marland, Paul
Rathbone, Tim
Wakeham, John


Marlow, Tony
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Renton, Tim
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Mates, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wall, Patrick


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Waller, Gary


Mawby, Ray
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walters, Dennis


Mawhinney. Dr Brian
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Ward, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Warren, Kenneth


Mayhew, Patrick
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watson, John


Mellor, David
Rost, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Wheeler, John


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Scott, Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wickenden, Keith


Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Moate, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Monro, Hector
Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Montgomery, Fergus
Silvester, Fred
Wolfson, Mark


Moore, John
Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Morgan, Geraint
Skeet, T. H. H.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sin)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Speed, Keith
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Mudd, David
Speller, Tony



Murphy, Christopher
Spence, John

NOES


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Adams, Allen
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cant, R. B.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Carmichael, Neil
Dempsey, James


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John
Dixon, Donald


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Dobson, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dormand, Jack


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas, Dick


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Conlan, Bernard
Dubs, Alfred


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cook, Robin F.
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cowans, Harry
Dunnett, Jack


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Eadie, Alex


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Crowther, J. S.
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
English, Michael


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dalyell, Tam
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Davidson, Arthur
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Evans, John (Newton)

Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Field, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rooker, J. W.


Fitch, Alan
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roper, John


Flannery, Martin
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Rowlands, Ted


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Ryman, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sever, John


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Forrester, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Foster, Derek
McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Short, Mrs Renée


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McNally, Thomas
Silverman, Julius


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Magee, Bryan
Soley, Clive


Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, John
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Stallard, A. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Graham, Ted
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Stott, Roger


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Straw, Jack


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Haynes, Frank
Millan, Rt. Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr M. S. (Eas Kilbride)
Tilley, John


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Tinn, James


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Torney, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Homewood, William
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Horam, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Newens, Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Huckfield, Les
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wellbeloved, James


Hudson Davies, Ednyfed (Caerphilly)
O'Halloran, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Palmer, Arthur
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George
Whitlock, William


Janner, Hon Greville
Parker, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Race, Reg
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Radice, Giles
Wright, Shella


Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Lambie, David
Richardson, Jo



Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leighton, Ronald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. George Morton.


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lang, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eden, fit Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Lee, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eggar, Timothy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Elliott, Sir William
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Faith, Mrs Shella
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Farr, John
Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Silvester, Fred


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Sims, Roger


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McQuarrie, Albert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Forman, Nigel
Major, John
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marland, Paul
Speed, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Marlow, Tony
Speller, Tony


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Fry, Peter
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Squire, Robin


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Patrick
Steel, Rt Hon David


Goodhart, Philip
Mellor, David
Steen, Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Mever, Sir Anthony
Stevens, Martin


Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stokes, John


Greenway, Harry
Miscampbell, Norman
Strading Thomas, J.


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, Donald


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Hannam, John
Murphy, Christopher
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Haselhurst, Alan
Myles, David
Tripper, David


Hastings, Stephen
Neale, Gerrard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Needham, Richard
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael
Waddington, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony
Wakeham, John


Heddle, John
Normanton, Tom
Waldegrave, Hon William


Henderson, Barry
Nott, Rt Hon John
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hill, James
Osborn, John
Wall, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Waller, Gary


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Ward, John


Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil
Warren, Kenneth


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Parris, Matthew
Watson, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pawsey, James
Whitney, Raymond


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Penhaligon, David
Wickenden, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Percival, Sir Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner
Wilkinson, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Porter, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, Sir David
Wolfson, Mark


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prior, Rt Hon James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Kershaw, Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey
Younger, Rt Hon George


King, Rt Hon Tom
Raison, Timothy



Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rathbone, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.


Lamont, Normen
Renton, Tim

NOES


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Adams, Allen
Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allaun, Frank
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Anderson, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Newens, Stanley


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
George, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Halloran, Michael


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Ginsburg, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Golding, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Graham, Ted
Park, George


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parker, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Parry, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pavitt, Laurie


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Race, Reg


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Haynes, Frank
Radice, Giles


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Jo


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchan, Norman
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Campbell, Ian
Homewood, William
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hooley, Frank
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cant, R. B.
Horam, John
Rooker, J. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roper, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huckfield, Les
Rowlands, Ted


Cartwright, John
Hudson Davies, Ednyfed (Caerphilly)
Ryman, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sever, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sheerman, Barry


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
John, Brynmor
Short, Mrs Renée


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cook, Robin F.
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Silverman, Julius


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Soley, Clive


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Crowther, J. S.
Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Cryer, Bob
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stoddart, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kinnock, Neil
Stott, Roger


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Lambie, David
Straw, Jack


Dalyell, Tam
Lamborn, Harry
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davidson, Arthur
Leighton, Ronald
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Deakins, Eric
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Tilley, John


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Torney, Tom


Dobson, Frank
McElhone, Frank
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Dormand, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William
Wainwright. Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Dubs, Alfred
Maclennan, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McNally, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Eadie, Alex
Magee, Bryan
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Eastham, Ken
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Winnick, David


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Woodall, Alec


Evans, John (Newton)
Maxton, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Faulds, Andrew
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Field, Frank
Meacher, Michael
Wright, Shelia


Fitch, Alan
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Young, David (Bolton East)


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Rt. Hon Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Mr. George Morton and


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Mr. Joseph Dean.